5 ms·
I think this is correct. Here is my somewhat simplified but as far as I know not too far from the truth version of what happened based on following from the sid
by skinkestek 5y ago
I think this is correct. Here is my somewhat simplified but as far as I know not too far from the truth version of what happened based on following from the sidelines of Twitter and HN, please correct me if I'm wrong (feel free to adjust my score as well, I don't care about that, but tell me what I got wrong):
(Oh yes, as I mentioned to someone else earlier today I'm so utterly fed up about how we treat certain topics. I actually respect actual climate scientists but I don't to same degree respect people who are out to punish climate heretics.)
As far as I can see Bob was everyones uncle, generally popular, not infallible but widely respected until he did the grave sin of not paying enough respect to climate scientists or something to that effect. In fact there is a chance he just asked questions, but that is a sin so grave it got its own derogatory term, JAQ-ing. As everyone should know by know asking questions isn't good scientific behaviors and everyone who ever does it only ever do it to it to derail constructive discussions.
After that he became pretty clueless and his books became dumb and useless. All he knew about programming is wrong and it turns out he never helped any project.
- MauranKilom 5y agoIf this is supposed to be related to the article, you've completely the mark. The article presents a very nuanced view on the book, including its historical context, the wealth of good advice, but ultimately also the impractical or antithetical parts. I hadn't heard of Uncle Bob being cancelled before this thread, but I have voiced my reservations about Clean Code to colleagues multiple times before. You're not doing anyone a favor by painting all criticism of his work like that. It's meaningless polarizing nonsense.
- LAC-Tech 5y agoJust speaking for myself - I agree the article is a good technical criticism. It's the timing of posting the article again that's suspect. But maybe I should give the benefit of the doubt.
- skinkestek 5y ago> If this is supposed to be related to the article, you've completely the mark. It was not related to the article but to the comment. Sorry for the confusion.