I think you could quite easily quantify the effect various tools have on a code base; adding unit tests, using a repl, static vs. dynamic etc. on the various aspects of your code:
- How quick/easy is it to add new features?
- How often do you add new bugs?
- How long does it take to fix bugs?
...but I think you could also look at the impact individual bad actors (the 'dont care' programmers) have on the same code base.
Now, because the 'dont care' programmers hack out rubbish at the speed of light, it may superficially appear that the net impact on the code base is balanced; more features, more bugs... but that rubbish slowly spreads out into the code base, and incrementally trigger a cascading bug creation rate for all the programmers.
Now, if you want to suggest that tools can add enough value to overcome the negatives from having rubbish programmers, I'm all ears, because I've never seen a tool that can do that. The bad programmers just abuse the tools or ignore them.
So... in that context, I think its fair to say, more tools really achieves nothing much, when bad programmers and bad programming practice results in such catastrophically bad outcomes for software.
Maybe, if you can make your tools nice enough and add enough processes you can kind of force bad programmers up a notch. I appreciate that; but the question really is, why are there so many programmers who are so rubbish? Why do they never seem to get better? Why don't they care?
Do you really think you engineer a solution to that? ...because I think it's a social problem, not a technical one.
Maybe some tools can help, and maybe not everything Uncle Bob says is gospel... sure; but I think this is just stupid:
> Uncle Bob gives terrible advice. Following it will make your code worse.
I think history has objectively shown this is false; but of course, you're welcome to have your own opinion without any substantive basis other than that opinion itself if you like.