4 ms·

The title of this post should be "how not to disagree with others in a public forum". The tone is alienating and disrespectful, so much so that the valid critic

The title of this post should be "how not to disagree with others in a public forum". The tone is alienating and disrespectful, so much so that the valid criticisms of XML as a technology are completely buried by the arrogance and off-topic political and social commentary: "the current American presidency and XML have much in common", "XML is the drug-addicted gang member who had committed his first murder before he had sex, which was rape." If we want computing to be a friendly and welcoming field and contribute to the betterment of humanity, we can't tolerate people who behave like this in public.

ScottBurson 14y ago
I think the worst of it was Naggum's utter conviction of his own moral superiority... at the same time he was gleefully dumping shit on others. He's dead, BTW. Although he was smart and sometimes made good points, I do not miss him.
- batista 14y ago
  >I think the worst of it was Naggum's utter conviction of his own moral superiority... at the same time he was gleefully dumping shit on others. How is that "the worst"? One's feeling of moral superiority and dumping shit on others are not contradictory --except if one's conviction of his moral superiority is wrong. Dumping shit on others does not make you morally inferior (in the same way that they could be), if that's what you suggest. If one is bad-mouthing some rapist, it doesn't mean that he's as morally bad as the rapist because of doing so. That said, all this "moral" thing is beside the point: what Naggun was utterly convicted of was his _technical_ correctness, which is something completely different.
  - pwpwp 14y ago
    Can you please stop calling him Naggun?
    - batista 14y ago
      Well, if everybody understands that I refer to Naggum, where's the problem? (That's essentially the argument of the "omit semicolons / pro ASI" people -- since browsers grok it, where's the problem with abusing an error checking mechanism with our syntax?) That said, what is it to you? I thought that was his name, probably because phonetically it sounds better in my language, so I misspelled it 2-3 times. Only know I found out it is Naggum. It's not like I did it on purpose, or that I would continue doing it if I knew better, so I find your request absurd.
  - ScottBurson 14y ago
    Dumping shit on others does not make you morally inferior You're missing the picture. Naggum dumped on practically everyone. And while he would always argue that he had been provoked because everyone else were such idiots, I think a dispassionate observer would reach a different conclusion. all this "moral" thing is beside the point Ironically, Naggum would not have agreed with you on this point. He made a big deal of it. Oh, and it really is "Naggum" with an "m" -- the HN title is wrong.
- DavidAbrams 14y ago
  "I think the worst of it was Naggum's utter conviction of his own moral superiority... at the same time he was gleefully dumping shit on others." You act as though he named people and dumped shit on them. He didn't. And data formats are not a "moral" issue. The people who feel offended by this guy are clearly insecure as hell.
batista 14y ago
>If we want computing to be a friendly and welcoming field and contribute to the betterment of humanity, we can't tolerate people who behave like this in public. Other people can't tolerate overly-polite, overly-cautious, overly-friendly, overly-political-aware, overly-PC tone. It makes us droozy and keeps the discussion in a level better suited for enterprise brainstorming meetings and committees. Everybody looses. Tech and science leaders where very frequently passionate and prone to rant. Just think of Torvalds reactions to (what he thinks are) stupid ideas in the kernel list -- even if he's wrong, it helps keep everybody vigilant and agitated for his contributions. >If we want computing to be a friendly and welcoming field and contribute to the betterment of humanity, we can't tolerate people who behave like this in public. The aim is not to make computing a "friendly and welcoming field" (that would be the boy scouts), it's to make it an effective, productive and interesting to work in field. If you start judging contributions to a field by politeness of "behavior in public" then you're doing the field a disfavor. The biggest scientist in some field could as well be a huge jerkoff -- for example, Djikstra was known for his passionate rants and snarky tone against everything he considered a bad practice.
- dhconnelly 14y ago
  You're setting up a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between behaving like an asshole and too much diplomacy. Do you really think respectful disagreement is the same as being "overly-PC"? Torvalds is a little harsh sometimes, but it's nothing compared to the disgusting rudeness of this rant.
  - jusben1369 14y ago
    Yes it's a great point. Too often we try and reduce things to black and white when nearly everything is a shade of gray.
    - gruseom 14y ago
      I've never understood that "shades of gray" line. How about some color? Edit: this seems to need clarifying. I understand what the line means. What I don't understand is why people use it so much when it repeats the error it purports to correct. In nearly every case where "reality is either 0 or 1" is wrong, "reality is some coefficient of a single variable between 0 and 1" is just as wrong. That is a poor way to champion the richness of reality. What's interesting is how it corresponds to the emotional crimpedness of a world in which everything is gray.
tbatterii 14y ago
"If we want computing to be a friendly and welcoming field and contribute to the betterment of humanity, we can't tolerate people who behave like this in public." "Friendly and welcoming" is not a pre-condition for the "betterment of humanity". If it were, only smooth talkers would thrive(like lawyers) and not assholes like Steve Jobs etc... I would rather computing be a field where good ideas win, and if the person with the good idea is nice and welcoming, well that's just a nice bonus but shouldn't affect the evaluation of an idea in my ideal world which I know doesn't really exist. Innovation should be easier and the notion that a good idea requires it be presented within some tolerable/unnecessary social parameters is artificially limiting and only provides an environment where less innovation happens.
Jach 14y ago
Even though he's gone, Naggum is not without his own defenses for his abrasiveness. This one of his is especially applicable to your own comment. http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3250519673662774@naggum.no.html http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3250519673662774@naggum.... (And of course meta-discussion about Naggum was fairly common when he was alive and active, so there are many more defenses and attack-backs.)
antidoh 14y ago
Indeed. > Robbery is not just another way of making a living, rape is not just another way of satisfying basic human needs, torture is not just another way of interrogation. And XML is not just another way of writing S-exps. >| I use XML on a daily basis and think it is a simple and intelligent way to represent data. > A comment on this statement is by now entirely superfluous. >| I would like to hear why you think it is so bad, can you be more specific please? > If you really need more information, search the Net, please. And condescension is not just another way of disagreement.
nkurz 14y ago
I disagree. Generally you are right, and discussions should be civil and measured, but some things are beyond the pale and deserve a proportionate response. XML is one of these. Obviously Naggum has written a rant rather than a technical explication, but he makes his point better than any white paper possibly could. I find this to be one of the best pieces of polemic writing that I have ever seen. It's technically accurate, concentrates the abuse on the technology rather than the submitter, and is hilarious to read. It also perfectly captures my sentiments regarding XML. I loved it when it was written, and I love it now. I'm sorry that it offends you, but if it gets even one more person to sit up and ask themselves whether they should choose XML for a new project they are writing, I feel it has served its purpose and justified the offense.
specialist 14y ago
You may not have been present during XML's ascendency. Naggum's rhetorical voice was a totally appropriate response. Being shouted down by the XML goon squad got real old real fast.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Sometimes you get so frustrated with being polite and civil and have no patience but to let loose with as vivid a picture of the problem as you can possibly unleash. Civility leads to complacency. That was the post of someone with some serious conviction, not a passive participant who was indifferent to standards.

ScottBurson 14y ago

I think the worst of it was Naggum's utter conviction of his own moral superiority... at the same time he was gleefully dumping shit on others. He's dead, BTW. Although he was smart and sometimes made good points, I do not miss him.

batista 14y ago
>I think the worst of it was Naggum's utter conviction of his own moral superiority... at the same time he was gleefully dumping shit on others. How is that "the worst"? One's feeling of moral superiority and dumping shit on others are not contradictory --except if one's conviction of his moral superiority is wrong. Dumping shit on others does not make you morally inferior (in the same way that they could be), if that's what you suggest. If one is bad-mouthing some rapist, it doesn't mean that he's as morally bad as the rapist because of doing so. That said, all this "moral" thing is beside the point: what Naggun was utterly convicted of was his _technical_ correctness, which is something completely different.
- pwpwp 14y ago
  Can you please stop calling him Naggun?
  - batista 14y ago
    Well, if everybody understands that I refer to Naggum, where's the problem? (That's essentially the argument of the "omit semicolons / pro ASI" people -- since browsers grok it, where's the problem with abusing an error checking mechanism with our syntax?) That said, what is it to you? I thought that was his name, probably because phonetically it sounds better in my language, so I misspelled it 2-3 times. Only know I found out it is Naggum. It's not like I did it on purpose, or that I would continue doing it if I knew better, so I find your request absurd.
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  Dumping shit on others does not make you morally inferior You're missing the picture. Naggum dumped on practically everyone. And while he would always argue that he had been provoked because everyone else were such idiots, I think a dispassionate observer would reach a different conclusion. all this "moral" thing is beside the point Ironically, Naggum would not have agreed with you on this point. He made a big deal of it. Oh, and it really is "Naggum" with an "m" -- the HN title is wrong.
DavidAbrams 14y ago
"I think the worst of it was Naggum's utter conviction of his own moral superiority... at the same time he was gleefully dumping shit on others." You act as though he named people and dumped shit on them. He didn't. And data formats are not a "moral" issue. The people who feel offended by this guy are clearly insecure as hell.

batista 14y ago

>If we want computing to be a friendly and welcoming field and contribute to the betterment of humanity, we can't tolerate people who behave like this in public. Other people can't tolerate overly-polite, overly-cautious, overly-friendly, overly-political-aware, overly-PC tone. It makes us droozy and keeps the discussion in a level better suited for enterprise brainstorming meetings and committees. Everybody looses. Tech and science leaders where very frequently passionate and prone to rant. Just think of Torvalds reactions to (what he thinks are) stupid ideas in the kernel list -- even if he's wrong, it helps keep everybody vigilant and agitated for his contributions. >If we want computing to be a friendly and welcoming field and contribute to the betterment of humanity, we can't tolerate people who behave like this in public. The aim is not to make computing a "friendly and welcoming field" (that would be the boy scouts), it's to make it an effective, productive and interesting to work in field. If you start judging contributions to a field by politeness of "behavior in public" then you're doing the field a disfavor. The biggest scientist in some field could as well be a huge jerkoff -- for example, Djikstra was known for his passionate rants and snarky tone against everything he considered a bad practice.

dhconnelly 14y ago
You're setting up a false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between behaving like an asshole and too much diplomacy. Do you really think respectful disagreement is the same as being "overly-PC"? Torvalds is a little harsh sometimes, but it's nothing compared to the disgusting rudeness of this rant.
- jusben1369 14y ago
  Yes it's a great point. Too often we try and reduce things to black and white when nearly everything is a shade of gray.
  - gruseom 14y ago
    I've never understood that "shades of gray" line. How about some color? Edit: this seems to need clarifying. I understand what the line means. What I don't understand is why people use it so much when it repeats the error it purports to correct. In nearly every case where "reality is either 0 or 1" is wrong, "reality is some coefficient of a single variable between 0 and 1" is just as wrong. That is a poor way to champion the richness of reality. What's interesting is how it corresponds to the emotional crimpedness of a world in which everything is gray.

tbatterii 14y ago

"If we want computing to be a friendly and welcoming field and contribute to the betterment of humanity, we can't tolerate people who behave like this in public." "Friendly and welcoming" is not a pre-condition for the "betterment of humanity". If it were, only smooth talkers would thrive(like lawyers) and not assholes like Steve Jobs etc... I would rather computing be a field where good ideas win, and if the person with the good idea is nice and welcoming, well that's just a nice bonus but shouldn't affect the evaluation of an idea in my ideal world which I know doesn't really exist. Innovation should be easier and the notion that a good idea requires it be presented within some tolerable/unnecessary social parameters is artificially limiting and only provides an environment where less innovation happens.

Jach 14y ago

Even though he's gone, Naggum is not without his own defenses for his abrasiveness. This one of his is especially applicable to your own comment. http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3250519673662774@naggum.no.html http://www.xach.com/naggum/articles/3250519673662774@naggum.... (And of course meta-discussion about Naggum was fairly common when he was alive and active, so there are many more defenses and attack-backs.)

antidoh 14y ago

Indeed. > Robbery is not just another way of making a living, rape is not just another way of satisfying basic human needs, torture is not just another way of interrogation. And XML is not just another way of writing S-exps. >| I use XML on a daily basis and think it is a simple and intelligent way to represent data. > A comment on this statement is by now entirely superfluous. >| I would like to hear why you think it is so bad, can you be more specific please? > If you really need more information, search the Net, please. And condescension is not just another way of disagreement.

nkurz 14y ago

I disagree. Generally you are right, and discussions should be civil and measured, but some things are beyond the pale and deserve a proportionate response. XML is one of these. Obviously Naggum has written a rant rather than a technical explication, but he makes his point better than any white paper possibly could. I find this to be one of the best pieces of polemic writing that I have ever seen. It's technically accurate, concentrates the abuse on the technology rather than the submitter, and is hilarious to read. It also perfectly captures my sentiments regarding XML. I loved it when it was written, and I love it now. I'm sorry that it offends you, but if it gets even one more person to sit up and ask themselves whether they should choose XML for a new project they are writing, I feel it has served its purpose and justified the offense.

specialist 14y ago

You may not have been present during XML's ascendency. Naggum's rhetorical voice was a totally appropriate response. Being shouted down by the XML goon squad got real old real fast.

astrodust 14y ago
Sometimes you get so frustrated with being polite and civil and have no patience but to let loose with as vivid a picture of the problem as you can possibly unleash. Civility leads to complacency. That was the post of someone with some serious conviction, not a passive participant who was indifferent to standards.