> If the author is going to make a convincing case his way is "right" and other ways are "wrong", it's incumbent upon him to clearly state what failures I will

> If the author is going to make a convincing case his way is "right" and other ways are "wrong", it's incumbent upon him to clearly state what failures I will avoid. I agree, any claim that you should do XYZ should give a strong argument. The article here does try to give very short arguments, to be fair. I leave unconvinced by many of them. For example, requiring bash means you can't use dash; dash is less capable but much faster. I prefer arguments that walk through the key pros and cons. Longer, but in long run more useful.