haha - touché, point taken :-)
Deadlines seem like a great excuse for compromising quality. Sure, life is complicated, the boss is demanding, the mortgage has to be paid, the children need to be supported etc. etc. but compromising quality and enthusiasm (they usually are correlated) because of the "terror" of a deadline will just leave you at the mercy of the next "terror", only this time you'll even have even less enthusiasm to fix the spaghetti. Doesn't sound like an enjoyable existence.
Of course, very few people have the privilege of never having to compromise, but it's never black or white and there are many more degrees of freedom to choose the path with more quality than are implied.
>"The advantages and limitations", what works and what doesn't, "areas to avoid" are precisely the point of that kind of review.
The "area to avoid" in the review is Node.js and considering that large and impressive projects have been written in it, it seems that this is another case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I hate to "well actually" you :) , but a great number of authors have contracts that demand one or two novels a year over a fixed period of time. I know Iain Banks did with his publisher, he mentioned it at a one of his readings of a new but yet unpublished novel I was lucky to attend back in 2007'ish.
> they usually don't take reader requests to change this or that part of the story.
Even well known authors are reigned in by their editors and proof readers, and sometimes things have to be changed.
Sure. If you're a good novelist you can write something great even on a keyboard with a broken 'e' key (btw, your 'I' key is about to break; you should replace it asap).
But novelists don't have deadlines and when the novel is done, they usually don't take reader requests to change this or that part of the story.
"The advantages and limitations", what works and what doesn't, "areas to avoid" are precisely the point of that kind of review.