Have a look at the Joel test. It's outdated, and might be a little controversial, but it's it list of ways to fix "stupid shit".
I don't have a copy of "Code Complete", but from what I've heard it's a similar deal. XP arguably eliminates a lot of stupid shit, but arguably introduces a lot of stupid shit at the same time (as do many dogmatic processes).
While "best practice" lists are always going to be controversial (in both programming and music, but not chess), they do have a lot of value if you don't overuse them, and take them with a grain of salt.
I think you're also missing idea of "fundamentals" as essential thing that article means by "stupid shit" - fundamentals meaning habits and not just instructions.
Not all "bad stuff" is "stupid shit" in this approach. The "joel test" really doesn't relate.
Just about all Chess players know to avoid hanging pieces - the article described going from there to making that understanding habitual. Essentially, the article, if it was consistent, would be looking for some equivalent to musical scales that a software engineer could do practice before actually programming. It is not a matter of knowing best practices but a way of systematically developing the habits to put them into practice.
It is the difference someone telling you not to make a mistake and going over and over doing things to actually get in the habit of not making mistakes... A person can learn theoretically how to play music in a week and if producing keystrokes at the proper time didn't matter, people wouldn't spend more than a week learning the skill. As it is, a lot more practice is required.
But really, I'm pretty sure there isn't a software equivalent of musical scale because software isn't as specific a skill as reading or performing music. Software involves a large variety of logical skills which most adults already have to some degree. It is so complicated on some levels that mistakes are sort-of inevitable on other levels.
It's very interesting to get ahold of a "best practice" book or an organization's SOP manual just to see what battle-tested advice is given for various situations... you may disagree but they embody wisdom. At the very least you can find out where they're coming from.
The Joel Test isn't really intended for individuals, though. It's more of a "how to fix stupid shit" on an institutional level. I think what people are looking for here are ways to fix stupid shit on an individual level.
I don't have a copy of "Code Complete", but from what I've heard it's a similar deal. XP arguably eliminates a lot of stupid shit, but arguably introduces a lot of stupid shit at the same time (as do many dogmatic processes).
While "best practice" lists are always going to be controversial (in both programming and music, but not chess), they do have a lot of value if you don't overuse them, and take them with a grain of salt.