Even the article essentially admits that there are many cases where what is normally seen as boring is actually dangerous - just he redefines these cases as "not boring".
Specifically, repetitious code is the most obvious case of boring and that's not at all safe. He just redefines that as "not boring" because it raises red flags for him. But that's pretty strained reasoning to say the least.
Code that is almost repetitious can also be dangerous because spotting where the changes are can be hard and the repeated parts can lull you into comfort.
Of course, code normally shouldn't be too interesting either but that's a different question.
It seems like it boils down to something like a boring code review indicates safe code because everything that's interesting at that point is a problem.
Even the article essentially admits that there are many cases where what is normally seen as boring is actually dangerous - just he redefines these cases as "not boring".
Specifically, repetitious code is the most obvious case of boring and that's not at all safe. He just redefines that as "not boring" because it raises red flags for him. But that's pretty strained reasoning to say the least.
Code that is almost repetitious can also be dangerous because spotting where the changes are can be hard and the repeated parts can lull you into comfort.
Of course, code normally shouldn't be too interesting either but that's a different question.
It seems like it boils down to something like a boring code review indicates safe code because everything that's interesting at that point is a problem.
OK then...