The problem with almost all of Martin's advice, and the advice of all those other full-time conference speakers who apparently never actually write any code, is that it's entirely unsupported. It's random opinions thrown out there.
Where is the data or evidence for his ideas?
Nowhere.
Even a few that call themselves 'scientists' still don't offer any evidence. I don't know why we tolerate it. Why doesn't someone shout out 'where's your data' at their talks?
90% of the "good" advice from Uncle Bob is unattributed restatements from Kernighan, Plauger, Ritchie, Yourdon, Myers. Big revelations like "DRY" and "SOLID" are buzzwordy rehashes from The Elements of Programming Style (1974) or Myers' books on composite software design.
I've wondered what experience and successes "Uncle Bob" has on his resume that makes him an authority. Whenever I read his articles I get the feeling he's a pompous fraud.
Because it's not practical. There are few people in a position to do research on entire software teams.
Also, even when it's possible to research something, external validity (whether it applies in another situation) is often a matter of opinion anyway.
We still need ways to share what we've learned from experience. But I think case studies, telling stories about what we learned in particular situations, are about the best we can do.
Can Martin point to _any_ major successful project that he's influenced with his ideas?
If not, then that's clearly a astronomically enormous red flag. If his ideas are that good he should be shipping successful stuff left, right, and centre. I don't think he is.
I'd listen to someone who's shipped great things. I don't think he's shipped anything substantial at all, let alone anything great.
Where is the data or evidence for his ideas?
Nowhere.
Even a few that call themselves 'scientists' still don't offer any evidence. I don't know why we tolerate it. Why doesn't someone shout out 'where's your data' at their talks?