4 ms·

The author makes it clear from the first paragraph that they're not trying to argue with the strong case for unsigned integers; they'd rather argue against the

The author makes it clear from the first paragraph that they're not trying to argue with the strong case for unsigned integers; they'd rather argue against the novice's case. I'd say that in this contest betweeen the author and somebody described as literally not understanding the implications of what they are asking for, the author might have eked out a victory. Now they can move on to the winner's bracket and argue against an intermediate-level engineer.

junon 4y ago
The title itself is incredibly aggravating. "Considered harmful" is the most passively arrogant phrase with the exception of Dijkstra's original paper, and it really irks me when authors use it.
- ksherlock 4y ago
  Dijkstra's chosen title was "A Case against the GO TO Statement". Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EWD1308.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/E...
  - junon 4y ago
    TIL. So, it's always been and will forever be arrogant in all cases. Good to know.
- j16sdiz 4y ago
  > Dijkstra's original paper That was an editorial title. The original title was : "A Case against the GO TO Statement"

junon 4y ago

The title itself is incredibly aggravating. "Considered harmful" is the most passively arrogant phrase with the exception of Dijkstra's original paper, and it really irks me when authors use it.

ksherlock 4y ago
Dijkstra's chosen title was "A Case against the GO TO Statement". Finally a short story for the record. In 1968, the Communications of the ACM published a text of mine under the title "The goto statement considered harmful", which in later years would be most frequently referenced, regrettably, however, often by authors who had seen no more of it than its title, which became a cornerstone of my fame by becoming a template: we would see all sorts of articles under the title "X considered harmful" for almost any X, including one titled "Dijkstra considered harmful". But what had happened? I had submitted a paper under the title "A case against the goto statement", which, in order to speed up its publication, the editor had changed into a "letter to the Editor", and in the process he had given it a new title of his own invention! The editor was Niklaus Wirth. https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EWD1308.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/E...
- junon 4y ago
  TIL. So, it's always been and will forever be arrogant in all cases. Good to know.
j16sdiz 4y ago
> Dijkstra's original paper That was an editorial title. The original title was : "A Case against the GO TO Statement"