> I always find the position of telling people to never point out problems, only suggestions or solutions odd. The article went lower than pointing out problem

> I always find the position of telling people to never point out problems, only suggestions or solutions odd. The article went lower than pointing out problems. It veered into toxicity, its claim to "irreverence" notwithstanding. From the first: > Object-Oriented Programming: Luckily the industry doesn’t really use this term any more so we can ignore the changed meaning. The small club of people who still care can use it correctly, everybody else can carry on not using it. Just be aware when diving through the history books that it might mean “extreme late binding of all things” or it might mean “modules, but using the word class” depending on the age of the text. The reference to the "small club of people who still care can use it correctly" is elitist, and he does not bother to define the term (other than in a meaningless call-out to his fellow club members). The casual readers who are not members of his self-described club are not left with helpful information to decide for themselves when and and what use of the term may or may not be wrong. It's just "If you know, then you know" phrasing. The tone does not improve through the rest of the article. I'm not sure this fellow should be teaching beginners how to program.