Sean wasn't making points. He was being obtuse and dismissive, and made repeated statements about the author and how much he was laughing at the idea that this

Sean wasn't making points. He was being obtuse and dismissive, and made repeated statements about the author and how much he was laughing at the idea that this was being read by anybody. I read it: I enjoyed it. I didn't run into anything I didn't understand, but I did feel like the phraseology was chosen to offend rather than inform. For example, "global variable" was used to describe any memory cell that could change from any point in the program, either directly or indirectly. Obviously any public function (setter or method) can change that value. If the instance variable is static or a member of a singleton, then it really is a global variable, but if the object is simply long-lived it might be equivalent with regards to the impact it has on debugging. Given that this isn't the ordinary use of the term "global variable", one has to read the article to understand that this is what is intended, but at least the article isn't very long. However because the author chose to overload the term (rightly or wrongly), it makes extracting the essence from a few quotes very difficult. However if you read the article: What part did you have trouble understanding?