"He is wrong" yes this is a good approach because you judge his actions not attacking him personally. Even better if you present the list of things and be more precise, for example, "he is wrong about comments and ..."
"exposing a clown..." this is a personal attack, even if somebody is wrong pitchforks and torches isn't a solution. This is bad for many reasons: this behavior fosters hostility, it is indistinguishable from "ad hominem", it doesn't help people to form an educated decision, rather just emotions
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
Let's consider a more extreme example - say, Deepak Chopra. Does anybody really have to waste time debunking all the crap coming out of his mouth? Nope. Anyone with more than two brain cells should see him for a total quack.
Now, uncle bob is very close to being a Deepak Chopra of the software. Is it worth debunking his obvious quackery? Practice shows that it's pointless, anyone with even a tiny bit of education already knows he's a quack, and zealots swallowed his quackery hook and sinker, and are not in a state of mental clarity to even consider any rational arguments. Just like with the Deepak Chopra followers.
You can say that somebody is wrong this is ok, but you can't do personal attacks (there is CoC). There is a difference. The difference is that personal attacks directed on the emotional part of the brain, where is saying somebody is wrong and explaining why is directed on the rational part.
When you try to employ emotion as your explanations this is not different from propaganda. You trying to beat quackery with an approach that is similar to quackery.
If you claim to be a person of science why don't you stick to facts instead of personal attacks?
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
Is it a personal attack to call Deepack Chopra a quack? No. It's stating the obvious. So why would we restrict our language when talking about any other quacks?
I don't have a special opinion about Deepak Chopra. From what I understand - he is promoting alternative medicine, for which we have scientific researches that show it doesn't work (maybe not exactly about his medicine but homeopathy, etc.) If he still claims his medicine works, then it is ok to call him a quack, even more, it is possible to escalate the case to fraud and bring the case to the court. Let's not use Deepak Chopra as a strawman.
Back to Bob Martin. Do you have evidence against what he is saying?
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
Of course, and I listed it right here in this thread. Principles of the actual, real world, regulated high reliability software developmemt, such as MISRA, are evidently incompatible with his made up crankpot ideas.
Also, there is a lot of commentary available on his totally misguided attitude towards static typing, no need to repeat it all over and over again.
This is a red flag for me when I see in thread words like "evidently" and "obvious" more than once, but I don't see evidence itself. What is the relationship between MISRA C and Bob Martin? Did he criticize it? Does it somehow contradict clean code or what?
lot of commentary available on his totally misguided attitude towards static typing
From this, I can conclude that you like static typing and Bob Martin doesn't. Does this justify personal attacks? You can dismiss his comments about static typing instead, for example with researches or personal experience.
Please refrain from personal attacks in the future. I honestly tried to explain why it is bad, I don't know what else to say to make this matter clear to you.
From code of conduct:
Using welcoming and inclusive language
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
Read MISRA-C, read uncle bob incoherent ramblings, compare and see for yourself.
Does it somehow contradict clean code or what?
Yes, it does.
From this, I can conclude that you like static typing and Bob Martin doesn't.
You know that this is a wrong conclusion and that this is not what I said.
Once again: uncle bob does not understand static typing. He's got a completely wrong perception of what static typing is, he was called out for his ignorance more than once, and yet he keep repeating his lies. It's not about liking or not liking static typing, it's about not even understanding what static typing is and making no effort to understand. At this point, "quack" or "clown" is not an insult but a 100% accurate and objective description.
Please refrain from personal attacks in the future.
Luckily, uncle bob is not present here, so I'm free to say whatever I like about this pathetic clown.
Once again: uncle bob does not understand static typing. He's got a completely wrong perception of what static typing is, he was called out for his ignorance more than once
Almost no hate speech, almost correct claims. No fact links, but let's leave it for now.
he keep repeating his lies... At this point, "quack" or "clown" is not an insult but a 100% accurate and objective description.
This part contains hate speech. Let me fix this for you:
It seems that Uncle Bob does not understand static typing. He's got a completely wrong perception of what static typing is, he was called out for his ignorance more than once (link1, link2), and yet he keeps repeating his lies wrong beliefs. At this point, "quack" or "clown" is not an insult but a 100% accurate and objective description
Luckily, uncle bob is not present here, so I'm free to say whatever I like about this pathetic clown.
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as moderators of DEV pledge to make participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone.
It means that Bob Martin can't participate and get a harassment-free experience. He's been harassed even before he joined.
I don't think Bob Martin needs my protection, the problem here is that it is harassment.
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
I don't understand which part of my comment you don't understand. I showed text before and after. I quoted CoC. And you again asking me about Deepak Chopra. Help me to understand which part is unclear for you.
It is ok to criticize. It is not ok to assault. If you want to talk about Deepak Chopra make a separate post, present some evidence and find somebody to talk about Deepak Chopra... (Please stop constructing this strawman argument)
strawman
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
I don't follow Bob Martin work. I searched the internet for "uncle bob types" and now my tail is on fire. He is doing some blatant claims and when people show how he is wrong he compares apple to oranges and says "I don’t know. I’ll let you decide." Which is quite annoying.
Yet this is not a reason to go for assaults. It is ok to criticize though
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a certain threshold of being wrong after which any counter arguments, any civil take-down approaches would be counterproductive and perceived by some as legitimising the wrong side. You know, like with, say, climate change deniers - even the mere fact of scientists arguing with them make them seem way more legitimate than they deserve to be.
Beyond this threshold, "quack" or "clown" is not a personal attack, it's just a proper, legit criticism, pointing out the wrong, and yet not legitimising the wrong side by engaging in a respectful argument with them.
No, it is a personal attack. It doesn't lead to constructive conversation. It leads to hate and pitchforks.
I'm not saying that we should tolerate climate change deniers or flat-earthers.
But I'm saying that personal attacks against them:
don't put you in a good light
don't show why they are wrong
increase the temperature of conversation and leads to emotional behavior instead of augmented conversation e.g. you use the same emotional tools that science deniers do. How is that better?
Instead, we should educate people. Show them how to rely on rational arguments, show them how their emotions can be employed to trick them in wrong decisions, show what fallacies are, talk about biases.
Why do quacks exist? Because of lack of education, lack of critical thinking, because quacks use our emotional nature.
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
Yet, I insist. You saw what engaging in a civilised discussion does to legitimisation of the quacks - see the misguided BBC policy for example, when they started to invite climate science deniers "for a balance". If scientists avoided engaging with them in the first place, they'd never get all that screen time for free.
Same goes for pretty much any other form of quackery - anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, white supremacists, clean coders. There's a time for rational arguments, and there's a time for sneering. The quacks audience won't get your rational arguments, they're not even interested in hearing them. Yet they'd welcome your arguments for legitimising their side. What they hate is being looked down on, being sneered at, which naturally suggests that it's a way to go.
I don't think this conversation is going in a productive direction. (My opinion doesn't enter into this; I'm speaking as one of the community moderators. I prefer not to bring that into discussions, but I don't want this to keep going.)
Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include: (...) Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks.
@stereobooster
, I appreciate your responses throughout. In the future, it may be more constructive for yourself and everyone else to click the three dots (...) and select Report Abuse, so the moderation team can review and take appropriate action.
What they hate is being looked down on, being sneered at, which naturally suggests that it's a way to go.
This attitude turns down a lot of people from functional programming. You know this, right?
As well, I don't see how that approach changed Bob Martin attitude at least a bit. He keeps going, and this media coverage only increases his audience.
anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, white supremacists, clean coders.
There was some "internet drama" in React community recently. It started with a very similar claim. (This is shouldn't bother you, just a fun fact)
My PoV is that there are some bad actors which can't be argued (maybe they do it intentionally, maybe not - doesn't matter), and some people which are got in bad influence and "can be saved". I believe that the number of bad actors is much less than "innocent citizens". And we should try harder to convince people and explain why bad actors are wrong.
When I say that you should use rational arguments instead of assaults I don't hope that bad actors will hear you, I hope that "innocent citizens" will be like "🤔hey they are right, vaccine indeed stopped smallpox".
Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community. View Code of Conduct
This attitude turns down a lot of people from functional programming. You know this, right?
Did I ever say that FP is a form of quackery?
As well, I don't see how that approach changed Bob Martin attitude at least a bit.
Quacks don't change. Their core base don't change. The only thing you can do with the quacks is to let all the innocent passers by know how sneered upon the quacks and their gullible fans are, so they won't be tempted to join their ranks.
and some people which are got in bad influence and "can be saved".
I used to think this way too. Got way more cynical since then, upon not seeing a single example of anyone being "saved" by a rational argument.
I hope that "innocent citizens" will be like "🤔hey they are right, vaccine indeed stopped smallpox".
And what they really think is: "look, those egg heads are arguing with anti-vaxxers seriously, there must be something there after all".
He is not "controversial", he is plain wrong, through and through. And exposing a clown for what he is is the only right thing to do.
"He is wrong" yes this is a good approach because you judge his actions not attacking him personally. Even better if you present the list of things and be more precise, for example, "he is wrong about comments and ..."
"exposing a clown..." this is a personal attack, even if somebody is wrong pitchforks and torches isn't a solution. This is bad for many reasons: this behavior fosters hostility, it is indistinguishable from "ad hominem", it doesn't help people to form an educated decision, rather just emotions
Let's consider a more extreme example - say, Deepak Chopra. Does anybody really have to waste time debunking all the crap coming out of his mouth? Nope. Anyone with more than two brain cells should see him for a total quack.
Now, uncle bob is very close to being a Deepak Chopra of the software. Is it worth debunking his obvious quackery? Practice shows that it's pointless, anyone with even a tiny bit of education already knows he's a quack, and zealots swallowed his quackery hook and sinker, and are not in a state of mental clarity to even consider any rational arguments. Just like with the Deepak Chopra followers.
You can say that somebody is wrong this is ok, but you can't do personal attacks (there is CoC). There is a difference. The difference is that personal attacks directed on the emotional part of the brain, where is saying somebody is wrong and explaining why is directed on the rational part.
When you try to employ emotion as your explanations this is not different from propaganda. You trying to beat quackery with an approach that is similar to quackery.
If you claim to be a person of science why don't you stick to facts instead of personal attacks?
Is it a personal attack to call Deepack Chopra a quack? No. It's stating the obvious. So why would we restrict our language when talking about any other quacks?
I don't have a special opinion about Deepak Chopra. From what I understand - he is promoting alternative medicine, for which we have scientific researches that show it doesn't work (maybe not exactly about his medicine but homeopathy, etc.) If he still claims his medicine works, then it is ok to call him a quack, even more, it is possible to escalate the case to fraud and bring the case to the court. Let's not use Deepak Chopra as a strawman.
Back to Bob Martin. Do you have evidence against what he is saying?
Of course, and I listed it right here in this thread. Principles of the actual, real world, regulated high reliability software developmemt, such as MISRA, are evidently incompatible with his made up crankpot ideas.
Also, there is a lot of commentary available on his totally misguided attitude towards static typing, no need to repeat it all over and over again.
This is a red flag for me when I see in thread words like "evidently" and "obvious" more than once, but I don't see evidence itself. What is the relationship between MISRA C and Bob Martin? Did he criticize it? Does it somehow contradict clean code or what?
From this, I can conclude that you like static typing and Bob Martin doesn't. Does this justify personal attacks? You can dismiss his comments about static typing instead, for example with researches or personal experience.
Please refrain from personal attacks in the future. I honestly tried to explain why it is bad, I don't know what else to say to make this matter clear to you.
From code of conduct:
Read MISRA-C, read uncle bob incoherent ramblings, compare and see for yourself.
Yes, it does.
You know that this is a wrong conclusion and that this is not what I said.
Once again: uncle bob does not understand static typing. He's got a completely wrong perception of what static typing is, he was called out for his ignorance more than once, and yet he keep repeating his lies. It's not about liking or not liking static typing, it's about not even understanding what static typing is and making no effort to understand. At this point, "quack" or "clown" is not an insult but a 100% accurate and objective description.
Luckily, uncle bob is not present here, so I'm free to say whatever I like about this pathetic clown.
Almost no hate speech, almost correct claims. No fact links, but let's leave it for now.
This part contains hate speech. Let me fix this for you:
In the interest of fostering an open and welcoming environment, we as moderators of DEV pledge to make participation in our project and our community a harassment-free experience for everyone.
It means that Bob Martin can't participate and get a harassment-free experience. He's been harassed even before he joined.
I don't think Bob Martin needs my protection, the problem here is that it is harassment.
Again, a simple test, substitute uncle bob for Deepak Chopra here, will you still be able to say it's a "harassment" with a straight face?
I don't understand which part of my comment you don't understand. I showed text before and after. I quoted CoC. And you again asking me about Deepak Chopra. Help me to understand which part is unclear for you.
It is ok to criticize. It is not ok to assault. If you want to talk about Deepak Chopra make a separate post, present some evidence and find somebody to talk about Deepak Chopra... (Please stop constructing this strawman argument)
I don't follow Bob Martin work. I searched the internet for "uncle bob types" and now my tail is on fire. He is doing some blatant claims and when people show how he is wrong he compares apple to oranges and says "I don’t know. I’ll let you decide." Which is quite annoying.
Yet this is not a reason to go for assaults. It is ok to criticize though
The point I'm trying to make is that there is a certain threshold of being wrong after which any counter arguments, any civil take-down approaches would be counterproductive and perceived by some as legitimising the wrong side. You know, like with, say, climate change deniers - even the mere fact of scientists arguing with them make them seem way more legitimate than they deserve to be.
Beyond this threshold, "quack" or "clown" is not a personal attack, it's just a proper, legit criticism, pointing out the wrong, and yet not legitimising the wrong side by engaging in a respectful argument with them.
No, it is a personal attack. It doesn't lead to constructive conversation. It leads to hate and pitchforks.
I'm not saying that we should tolerate climate change deniers or flat-earthers.
But I'm saying that personal attacks against them:
Instead, we should educate people. Show them how to rely on rational arguments, show them how their emotions can be employed to trick them in wrong decisions, show what fallacies are, talk about biases.
Why do quacks exist? Because of lack of education, lack of critical thinking, because quacks use our emotional nature.
Yet, I insist. You saw what engaging in a civilised discussion does to legitimisation of the quacks - see the misguided BBC policy for example, when they started to invite climate science deniers "for a balance". If scientists avoided engaging with them in the first place, they'd never get all that screen time for free.
Same goes for pretty much any other form of quackery - anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, white supremacists, clean coders. There's a time for rational arguments, and there's a time for sneering. The quacks audience won't get your rational arguments, they're not even interested in hearing them. Yet they'd welcome your arguments for legitimising their side. What they hate is being looked down on, being sneered at, which naturally suggests that it's a way to go.
I don't think this conversation is going in a productive direction. (My opinion doesn't enter into this; I'm speaking as one of the community moderators. I prefer not to bring that into discussions, but I don't want this to keep going.)
@combinatorylogic , we need to debate ideas, not people. @stereobooster is correct calling this out. Please refer to the Code of Conduct. I've quoted three specific points below:
@stereobooster , I appreciate your responses throughout. In the future, it may be more constructive for yourself and everyone else to click the three dots (
...) and selectReport Abuse, so the moderation team can review and take appropriate action.Let's end this thread here.
This attitude turns down a lot of people from functional programming. You know this, right?
As well, I don't see how that approach changed Bob Martin attitude at least a bit. He keeps going, and this media coverage only increases his audience.
There was some "internet drama" in React community recently. It started with a very similar claim. (This is shouldn't bother you, just a fun fact)
My PoV is that there are some bad actors which can't be argued (maybe they do it intentionally, maybe not - doesn't matter), and some people which are got in bad influence and "can be saved". I believe that the number of bad actors is much less than "innocent citizens". And we should try harder to convince people and explain why bad actors are wrong.
When I say that you should use rational arguments instead of assaults I don't hope that bad actors will hear you, I hope that "innocent citizens" will be like "🤔hey they are right, vaccine indeed stopped smallpox".
Did I ever say that FP is a form of quackery?
Quacks don't change. Their core base don't change. The only thing you can do with the quacks is to let all the innocent passers by know how sneered upon the quacks and their gullible fans are, so they won't be tempted to join their ranks.
I used to think this way too. Got way more cynical since then, upon not seeing a single example of anyone being "saved" by a rational argument.
And what they really think is: "look, those egg heads are arguing with anti-vaxxers seriously, there must be something there after all".
Scroll up and read my last comment (two ago).
End this here please. Thank you.