I doubt Djikstra would have been Djikstra is he communicated in such a sterile way. His writing achieved the ends he sought. He's memorable and endlessly quoted

I doubt Djikstra would have been Djikstra is he communicated in such a sterile way. His writing achieved the ends he sought. He's memorable and endlessly quoted which gives life to his ideas beyond what is immediately provable. You might argue this is improper, but I think that's a bit morose. I dread the day when all people write like that second sentence. That's not to say someone should emulate him, though. It's not that it's wrong, it's that they're bound to fail and produce something tinny and derivative. That's the thing your revised sentence has going for it: it's as cheap as it is limp.