lol META - was this post a retort to the "gitflow considered harmful" article?
“Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
21–30 of 84 posts
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#22The thing that always bothered me about "Considered harmful" titles is that, when you title your own article that, you're just pompously referring to yourself in the third person. The reason they are in the passive voice is that the original "considered harmful" essay was a letter to the editor, and therefore was titled not by the author, but by the editor[1]. Therefore, to expand out the subject of the sentence, the…
Glad to see this, as I was surprised that there was an entire post about the harm that "considered harmful" essays caused without even citing the original reference that started the whole hoopla, the very-opinionated, very-brilliant and very-legendary Edsger Dijkstra.
On the "very-opinionated" point, I'm particularly fond of Alan Kay's quote:
> I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras.
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#23The grammatical construction "Blah Blah Considered Harmful" has always bugged me...it doesn't seem proper. Shouldn't it be something like "Blah Blah Should Be Considered Harmful"?
Technically speaking, if anyone has ever said that Blah Blah is harmful, than it has been considered harmful. The latter construction with Should Be is a more polite form, but the former is also correct if it's ever been true once.
I know what you mean and I agree. I still think it sounds awkward.
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#24Not understanding the hate for the title. It's just the author trying to be ironic and clever. Not everything has to be taken literally.
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#25The thing that always bothered me about "Considered harmful" titles is that, when you title your own article that, you're just pompously referring to yourself in the third person. The reason they are in the passive voice is that the original "considered harmful" essay was a letter to the editor, and therefore was titled not by the author, but by the editor[1]. Therefore, to expand out the subject of the sentence, the…
A traditional alternative to considered-harmful titles is titles of the form "Why X is not my favorite thing-that-X-is". The classic example is Brian Kernighan's article "Why Pascal is not my favorite programming language", but it works for just about anything. "Why git flow is not my favorite versioning method" works fine. "Why considered-harmful essays are not my favorite method of critique" is less cute, but quite polite. "Why goto is not my favorite control-flow construct" might be pushing it, though.
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#26For example, a piece titled "'Considered Harmful' Essays Considered Harmful" would very likely be a case of using the "considered harmful" format to draw attention for its own sake. We will ignore such essays in this commentary. Now I'm just confused.
It's called humor
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#27For example, a piece titled "'Considered Harmful' Essays Considered Harmful" would very likely be a case of using the "considered harmful" format to draw attention for its own sake. We will ignore such essays in this commentary. Now I'm just confused.
I consider your confusion harmful.
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glad to see this, as I was surprised that there was an entire post about the harm that "considered harmful" essays caused without even citing the original reference that started the whole hoopla, the very-opinionated, very-brilliant and very-legendary Edsger Dijkstra.
On the "very-opinionated" point, I'm particularly fond of Alan Kay's quote: > I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras.
Ha! Yeah.
The older I get the more immune I feel to arrogance; to me it's a symptom of frustration coming from high skill colliding with the rest of the world's lack thereof.
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#29The grammatical construction "Blah Blah Considered Harmful" has always bugged me...it doesn't seem proper. Shouldn't it be something like "Blah Blah Should Be Considered Harmful"?
Think of it as a newspaper title. There's an implied "XYZ Considered Harmful [by Experts]." That is the original context, a letter written by Dijkstra to the editor of Communications of the ACM, where the editor penned the title.
Re: “Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
#30I've always seen the inclusion "considered harmful" in a title as sort of a comedic device, not to be taken as seriously as the author does. It's a signal that "I'm about to say something opinionated; if you're easily offended, you probably don't want to read this". The article itself is such an example.
I'd much rather read a forceful, strong argument that contains some controversial claims than a piss-weak "perceived benefits and weaknesses of" essay, as the author suggests. Sometimes treating a topic brutally can get your point across more effectively. For example, some of James Mickens' more colourful writing demonstrates this.