Sakos parent
I've been going through the comments on previous posts. I think one of the biggest issues with the article is the title. It seems to act as an anchor for a lot of people to the point where they'll argue against things that aren't in the article, just implied by the title (without context). So there'll be people arguing that she doesn't want to validate at all and just wants to parse, when really the article is about where you validate your data (and what you do with the result). It is not about getting rid of all validation.
This is true of all famous essays. People remove the nuance included in the body and over-apply the title without really understanding it.
For example "Goto considered harmful". I remember working with a very good programmer who'd used a "goto", and a much less senior one[1] rejected their PR by linking to the article.
[1] I'm ashamed to say it was me, a long time ago.
That's precisely why I love to only comment things with questions, i.e. "isn't go-to considered harmful? Is this really the best way?".
It gives the person making the change the opportunity to give context for their decision - and either change or spell out their reasoning for it, potentially giving me an opportunity to learn from them.
Another good benefit is that it doesn't "attack" the PR author in the "non-violent communication" way
Doesn't that seem a bit passive aggressive? See what I did there?