“Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful(meyerweb.com)
meyerweb.com
“Considered Harmful” Essays Considered Harmful
http://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html
27 comments
A traditional alternative to considered-harmful titles is titles of the form "Why X is not my favorite thing-that-X-is". The classic example is Brian Kernighan's article "Why Pascal is not my favorite programming language", but it works for just about anything. "Why git flow is not my favorite versioning method" works fine. "Why considered-harmful essays are not my favorite method of critique" is less cute, but quite polite. "Why goto is not my favorite control-flow construct" might be pushing it, though.
Thanks for the Kernighan reference. It is probably the single most important reason behind the ignorant meme in tech/programming circles that Object Pascal / Delphi (not Pascal!) is an obsolete language. :-(
I hadn't read it before, but almost none of the critiques in that article apply to delphi, so someone who takes it as a serious modern day critique clearly knows nothing about delphi.
Right. I just found this comment: "It only took some minor additions and extensions to turn Pascal into something that was found useful for industrial strength programming. Witness Turbo Pascal and VAX Pascal, for example. Kernighan's paper could have taken the angle of "What Pascal Needs to Become a Very Useful Language," which would have come across as less angry."
Yeah, I think "I don't like this" should be different from "this is actually bad in tangible and measurable ways".
"Stuck Accelerator Pedals in Toyotas Considered Harmful" makes sense, but "Why stuck accelerator pedals in Toyotas are not my favorite accelerator pedals" isn't really descriptive of the issue, although is kind of funny as a title.
To put it another way, there is a place for both titles, but "Considered Harmful" should be reserved for dispassionate analysis.
"Stuck Accelerator Pedals in Toyotas Considered Harmful" makes sense, but "Why stuck accelerator pedals in Toyotas are not my favorite accelerator pedals" isn't really descriptive of the issue, although is kind of funny as a title.
To put it another way, there is a place for both titles, but "Considered Harmful" should be reserved for dispassionate analysis.
Glad to see this, as I was surprised that there was an entire post about the harm that "considered harmful" essays caused without even citing the original reference that started the whole hoopla, the very-opinionated, very-brilliant and very-legendary Edsger Dijkstra.
On the "very-opinionated" point, I'm particularly fond of Alan Kay's quote:
> I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras.
> I don't know how many of you have ever met Dijkstra, but you probably know that arrogance in computer science is measured in nano-Dijkstras.
Ha! Yeah.
The older I get the more immune I feel to arrogance; to me it's a symptom of frustration coming from high skill colliding with the rest of the world's lack thereof.
The older I get the more immune I feel to arrogance; to me it's a symptom of frustration coming from high skill colliding with the rest of the world's lack thereof.
I've always found that quote to be particularly douchey. Then again, I do think that Dijkstra's contributions to CS were more important than Kay's, too, but I suspect that I might not be in the majority there...
I think they are sufficiently different that it is not possible to compare importance on an objective basis.
Dijkstra worked in Computer Science. And the relevant quote there is that "Computer Science is no more about computers, than Astronomy is about telescopes.”
Dr. Kay did phenomenally important work with computers and programming. It’s important in its own right. Either of us could say that we prefer to dwell on the ramifications of one or the other.
I think it’s safe to say that if you took either of their contributions away outright, our world in 2015 would be much poorer for it.
Now if you want a good Dr. Kay quote, “Programming is a Pop Culture” has to be high on the list. I think he’s deeply right about that, but being right doesn’t in any way tarnish the nano-Dijkstras associated with damning the entire field.
Dijkstra worked in Computer Science. And the relevant quote there is that "Computer Science is no more about computers, than Astronomy is about telescopes.”
Dr. Kay did phenomenally important work with computers and programming. It’s important in its own right. Either of us could say that we prefer to dwell on the ramifications of one or the other.
I think it’s safe to say that if you took either of their contributions away outright, our world in 2015 would be much poorer for it.
Now if you want a good Dr. Kay quote, “Programming is a Pop Culture” has to be high on the list. I think he’s deeply right about that, but being right doesn’t in any way tarnish the nano-Dijkstras associated with damning the entire field.
The thing is, Dijsktra also did a lot of practical work (first Algol compiler, an OS, structured programming), so I wouldn't discount him as just a theoretician, either.
I agree that they both did very important contributions, and that there's probably no way to compare their magnitude, so it comes down to personal interpretation, there's no argument there. Still, I believe the arrogance comment by Kay was douchey :)
I agree that they both did very important contributions, and that there's probably no way to compare their magnitude, so it comes down to personal interpretation, there's no argument there. Still, I believe the arrogance comment by Kay was douchey :)
Perhaps a “Kay” should be a measure worth approximately one deci-Dijkstra.
Wikipedia's article on Dijkstra says:
"He was the first to make the claim that programming is so inherently complex that (...)"
Meanwhile Alan Kay had 12 year old kids making computer games (videos on Web Archive).
Dijkstra contributed algorithms. In that sense he contributed as a mathematician. That doesn't diminish what he did. But it does not compare with what Alan Kay did for the sum of these two parts: computers, and people.
"He was the first to make the claim that programming is so inherently complex that (...)"
Meanwhile Alan Kay had 12 year old kids making computer games (videos on Web Archive).
Dijkstra contributed algorithms. In that sense he contributed as a mathematician. That doesn't diminish what he did. But it does not compare with what Alan Kay did for the sum of these two parts: computers, and people.
Kay : Dijkstra :: Ruby : Haskell
Dijkstra was correct in saying that you don't even need a computer to do "Computer Science," all you need is a pencil, paper, and a mental model of what you're trying to do given computer constraints.
Dijkstra more theoretical; Kay more hands-on.
I think BOTH are necessary, or at least important.
Dijkstra was correct in saying that you don't even need a computer to do "Computer Science," all you need is a pencil, paper, and a mental model of what you're trying to do given computer constraints.
Dijkstra more theoretical; Kay more hands-on.
I think BOTH are necessary, or at least important.
I think that's a pretty good analogy, though maybe you should s/ruby/objective-c/ to bring it closer to smalltalk :)
There is theoretical, and then there is theoretical: one is privately fueled and produces real-world industry-strong gems like Haskell; the other is publicly fueled and produces concepts such as self-stabilization and superstabilization.
If Dijkstra is so awesome someone should write a Wikipedia article with more important achievements and less medals.
If Dijkstra is so awesome someone should write a Wikipedia article with more important achievements and less medals.
I don't really understand what you mean by privately or publicly-fueled theory, but anyway...
Instead of waiting for someone to write on the wiki, you could go out there and google a bit.
Very briefly: he made major contributions to compiler and OS design (including the first Algol compiler and a whole OS, the THE OS), devised two fundamental graph algorithms (shortest path and spanning tree), and spearheaded making programming into a serious discipline rooted in maths (along the way pretty much giving birth to structured programming).
He also wrote (longhand!) over a thousand essays on CS and related topics, which are (as far as I've read, and I've read quite a few) all a joy to read.
You can start here: http://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/dijkstra_1053701.cfm and here: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/
Instead of waiting for someone to write on the wiki, you could go out there and google a bit.
Very briefly: he made major contributions to compiler and OS design (including the first Algol compiler and a whole OS, the THE OS), devised two fundamental graph algorithms (shortest path and spanning tree), and spearheaded making programming into a serious discipline rooted in maths (along the way pretty much giving birth to structured programming).
He also wrote (longhand!) over a thousand essays on CS and related topics, which are (as far as I've read, and I've read quite a few) all a joy to read.
You can start here: http://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/dijkstra_1053701.cfm and here: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/
Programming is not all of CS, and the fact that everyone and their mom are doing OO does not take away from anything of what Dijkstra said. On a more "people" level, I think that arguing for more rigor and formal approaches to programming is truly more important that creating the next generation of code monkeys. I agree that Kay's work has had much more practical influence, but I don't think it has been necessarily any better because of that. But as I said in the original comment, I'm probably in the minority on this.
[deleted]
Funny thing is, he didn't even call it that. His title was "A Case against the GO TO Statement". His editor Niklaus Wirth (yes, the guy who created Pascal and a ton of other languages) renamed it because he wanted to get people's attention and rustle some jimmies.
Are you sure about that? Did you skip the 'What Are “Considered Harmful” Essays?' section near the top?
Seems the original reference is mentioned quite clearly. quote:
> The Jargon File has a short entry on “considered harmful” that encapsulates the genesis of such essays:
> Edsger W. Dijkstra’s note in the March 1968 Communications of the ACM, “Go To Statement Considered Harmful,” fired the first salvo in the structured programming wars…. As it turns out, the title under which the letter appeared was actually supplied by CACM’s editor, Niklaus Wirth.
> The controversy resulting from the article’s publication became so heated that the CACM subsequently decided to never again publish pieces with such assertive positions.
Granted some of the links have since rotted over the last 13yrs though.
Seems the original reference is mentioned quite clearly. quote:
> The Jargon File has a short entry on “considered harmful” that encapsulates the genesis of such essays:
> Edsger W. Dijkstra’s note in the March 1968 Communications of the ACM, “Go To Statement Considered Harmful,” fired the first salvo in the structured programming wars…. As it turns out, the title under which the letter appeared was actually supplied by CACM’s editor, Niklaus Wirth.
> The controversy resulting from the article’s publication became so heated that the CACM subsequently decided to never again publish pieces with such assertive positions.
Granted some of the links have since rotted over the last 13yrs though.
innguest(1)
I've always seen the inclusion "considered harmful" in a title as sort of a comedic device, not to be taken as seriously as the author does. It's a signal that "I'm about to say something opinionated; if you're easily offended, you probably don't want to read this". The article itself is such an example.
I'd much rather read a forceful, strong argument that contains some controversial claims than a piss-weak "perceived benefits and weaknesses of" essay, as the author suggests. Sometimes treating a topic brutally can get your point across more effectively. For example, some of James Mickens' more colourful writing demonstrates this.
I'd much rather read a forceful, strong argument that contains some controversial claims than a piss-weak "perceived benefits and weaknesses of" essay, as the author suggests. Sometimes treating a topic brutally can get your point across more effectively. For example, some of James Mickens' more colourful writing demonstrates this.
So, tl;dr, you consider "'Considered Harmful' Essays Considered Harmful" harmful?
:)
:)
Almost to the extent of goto statements :)
For example, a piece titled "'Considered Harmful' Essays Considered Harmful" would very likely be a case of using the "considered harmful" format to draw attention for its own sake. We will ignore such essays in this commentary.
Now I'm just confused.
Now I'm just confused.
He ignored his own essay, so even the actual substance of the essay could be considered an existential threat to the essay. I have to wonder though if he ignored his own argument whilst in the process of writing his article, because if he truly did so then it probably should have been a dissertation on modalities which I'm sure we all could have readily ignored without doing ourselves much harm. Thus defeating the point of the article, leading to a resurgence of interest in Structuration.
Or to put it more simply: this essay is a plot by the intelligentsia to make us reason like a madman.
Or to put it more simply: this essay is a plot by the intelligentsia to make us reason like a madman.
I literally can't read another word of this essay because of the logical burden.
The expert troll doesn't need to push his work upon this targets, they push it upon themselves and others for him.
I consider your confusion harmful.
Considering your consideration of GP's confusion harming the considerateness of your considered position has led me to considerately classify this confusion to be considered harmful as well.
Ouch. Brain freeze!
Ouch. Brain freeze!
Indeed. I'm over these as well as any of the, "Why I quit X technology" or similarly titled essays. Oh and the "Open letter to Big Corp". You're not that important.
I don't really care why you quit using X. I don't need validation from some blog about what technology to use or not use. I can evaluate X technology on my own, thank you.
I don't really care why you quit using X. I don't need validation from some blog about what technology to use or not use. I can evaluate X technology on my own, thank you.
The information from those articles isn't the problem. Just the writing style.
They often want to tell you "We're switching from X to Y, because our use-cases aren't that of X (anymore)"
But they write it like "We're switching from X to Y and you should too, because X is really bad for everyone!"
If you ignore the holier-than-you writing style, and try to read these articles like the first example, they have some useful information :)
They often want to tell you "We're switching from X to Y, because our use-cases aren't that of X (anymore)"
But they write it like "We're switching from X to Y and you should too, because X is really bad for everyone!"
If you ignore the holier-than-you writing style, and try to read these articles like the first example, they have some useful information :)
This might be the flip side of a certain project presentation style.
How often do you see:
"If you have use case X, SoftGood will help you solve problem Y without triggering problem Z. If you have use case K, SoftGood may not be the best fit for you."
vs
"You should use SoftPanacea -- it's design-driven, big-scale, cloud-fronked, makes your life easier, and is awesome!"
How often do you see:
"If you have use case X, SoftGood will help you solve problem Y without triggering problem Z. If you have use case K, SoftGood may not be the best fit for you."
vs
"You should use SoftPanacea -- it's design-driven, big-scale, cloud-fronked, makes your life easier, and is awesome!"
I still like them better than the "X is dead" followed by "long live X" that was a fad for a while.
I vote we focus on eliminating the most annoying of all title formats, the "gate" suffix.
I vote we focus on eliminating the most annoying of all title formats, the "gate" suffix.
Let me reach out to you about why I left Gmail for FastMail. It's because if you're not paying for the product... you ARE the product.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No I'm not. My user data is a form of currency that I spend in the manner of my choosing. If I choose to spend it at google, it may cost more than, say, fastmail, but it's still my choice.
I personally love the 'considered harmful' essays. They are usually used to describe faults in popular technology that most people seem to be blind to. They offer the reader a chance to move problems out of the unknown unknown.
Many times I find the points identified in the articles to be unfounded, and those points are easily dismissed. But every once in a while there is a real genuine problem.
I would rather dismiss 10 irrelevant points than miss the one show stopping fault identified in the article.
Many times I find the points identified in the articles to be unfounded, and those points are easily dismissed. But every once in a while there is a real genuine problem.
I would rather dismiss 10 irrelevant points than miss the one show stopping fault identified in the article.
No. I'm getting pretty tired of the notion that the only valuable discourse is pleasant, up-beat, and optimistic. This notion attempts to stifle entire swaths of the emotional spectrum and has at it's heart censorship based on a mainstream aversion to anything that smacks of confrontation or conflict. Up with opinionated, confrontational speech.
I disagree. If you look at what happens to the brain when it gets angry, nuance is lost in favor of over-simplified black-and-white thinking. I do agree with you that sharing conflicting points of view is good. Too much passion, however, can cloud reason.
To clarify I'm not advocating for rage-filled screeds as a viable method of communicating nuanced information, or even as a viable method of communication. As you said sharing conflicting viewpoints is valuable. I take issue with the suggestion that this is only valuable if the conflict is framed in appealing language or "toned down" to "acceptable" levels, whatever those are. Conflict is ok. Resolving it is how we get shit done.
I would personally like to replace the words "considered harmful" with "is bad news bears"[1], as usually that fits better with whatever it is that's.. well, considered harmful. Come on, Hacker News! If we all focus, we can make this happen!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_News_Bears
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_News_Bears
I've always thought of "considered harmful" titles as a cute bit of nerd humor, precisely because it's such a pompous and ridiculous-sounding phrase that it's very hard to say with a straight face. I'd usually take it to mean that the author doesn't take him or herself too seriously and knows that the matter they're discussing is ultimately pretty trivial.
What a great piece of writing. This could do so well as a preface to my all time favourite "programming" book: "The Pragmatic Programmer" written by Hunt & Thomas.
Also, IMO, the worst of such "considered harmful" essays were those that advised against the use of stored procedures and programmatic constructs directly on relational databases in favour of the shiny new hive-mind created ORMs.
The funny thing is, just as the best ORM technologies are beginning to sort their shyte out, we are seeing essays that they are now considered harmful. Reboot.
Also, IMO, the worst of such "considered harmful" essays were those that advised against the use of stored procedures and programmatic constructs directly on relational databases in favour of the shiny new hive-mind created ORMs.
The funny thing is, just as the best ORM technologies are beginning to sort their shyte out, we are seeing essays that they are now considered harmful. Reboot.
I was just enjoying this essay when I double checked the title and wondered if I could believe it anymore since it is also a considered harmful essay(?).
"They’ve become boring clichés. Nobody really wants to read “considered harmful” essays any more, because we’ve seen them a thousand times before and didn’t really learn anything from them, since we were too busy being annoyed to really listen to the arguments presented."
It's a boring and pompous cliché. In 1968, it was original. Now, write your own title.
It's a boring and pompous cliché. In 1968, it was original. Now, write your own title.
My sentiment exactly. If I wrote this post, it would have been titled "Considered harmful" Essays Considered Boring
You know, I think there might be a meta-analog to Godwin's law: that any meta-argument about arguing on the Internet eventually contains a reference to Godwin's law itself.
Since Hitler references are invariably followed by someone pointing out that Godwin's prophecy has been fulfilled, this reduces to a simply corollary of the law itself.
Since Hitler references are invariably followed by someone pointing out that Godwin's prophecy has been fulfilled, this reduces to a simply corollary of the law itself.
Everyone says we should write essays because it will get us noticed, make us more employable, and sharpen our writing skills. But few of us have anything important to say. So we get this glut of self important "considered harmful" essays. And we're all guilty.
> Everyone says we should write essays because it will get us noticed, make us more employable, and sharpen our writing skills. But few of us have anything important to say.
The advice needs to be updated slightly, then, to clarify the apparent confusion: you should, if you can, write essays for all those reasons, but step one of writing an essay for those purposes is find something meaningful to say.
The advice needs to be updated slightly, then, to clarify the apparent confusion: you should, if you can, write essays for all those reasons, but step one of writing an essay for those purposes is find something meaningful to say.
So only people with meaningful things to say or build should get noticed and hired?
> So only people with meaningful things to say or build should get noticed and hired?
...based on writing essays.
There are other ways to get noticed and hired. And, writing essays that reveal that you have nothing meaningful to say probably isn't a valuable use of time to get noticed and hired (if you are trying to get noticed and hired for a tech job, taking the same time to increase your portfolio of open source contributions you can point to is probably more valuable.)
...based on writing essays.
There are other ways to get noticed and hired. And, writing essays that reveal that you have nothing meaningful to say probably isn't a valuable use of time to get noticed and hired (if you are trying to get noticed and hired for a tech job, taking the same time to increase your portfolio of open source contributions you can point to is probably more valuable.)
> > So only people with meaningful things to say or build should get noticed and hired?
> ...based on writing essays.
> There are other ways to get noticed and hired.
Whenever hiring discussions come up, the three ways put forward to "get noticed" are personal blog, Github projects, and meetup attendance. None of those avenues work unless you have something meaningful to say or build outside of your day job. Having something meaningful to say or build in your day job seems to be deprecated in this market, because liars.
> ...based on writing essays.
> There are other ways to get noticed and hired.
Whenever hiring discussions come up, the three ways put forward to "get noticed" are personal blog, Github projects, and meetup attendance. None of those avenues work unless you have something meaningful to say or build outside of your day job. Having something meaningful to say or build in your day job seems to be deprecated in this market, because liars.
No. Employers need to realize they don't need to fill every damn position with a "rockstar." But until then, we'll keep playing the game.
Perhaps we can help educate employers by bringing an X-Box with Guitar Hero to interviews. When the inevitable "why did you bring that to the interview?" comes up, we fire it up and reply with "well, your advert did mention wanting a rock star..."
He's a juke box hero, got stars in his eyes
Yeah, juke box hero, got stars in his eyes
(http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/foreigner/jukeboxhero.html)
:-D
He's a juke box hero, got stars in his eyes
Yeah, juke box hero, got stars in his eyes
(http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/foreigner/jukeboxhero.html)
:-D
"Considered Harmful" is a cliche but not really harmful, unless you're the author and want to be viewed as hip/cutting-edge/cool.
I'd say that driving "Considered Harmful" out of the conversation should be considered harmful. The "considered harmful" titles are great because they provide a very concise encapsulation of the contents of the essay. When I see "X considered harmful" I immediately know that the work will be arguing against X. I've read a number of these because I want to see what there is to be said against things that I often take for granted, e.g. the utility of Angular or whatever.
I'd say that driving "Considered Harmful" out of the conversation should be considered harmful. The "considered harmful" titles are great because they provide a very concise encapsulation of the contents of the essay. When I see "X considered harmful" I immediately know that the work will be arguing against X. I've read a number of these because I want to see what there is to be said against things that I often take for granted, e.g. the utility of Angular or whatever.
The grammatical construction "Blah Blah Considered Harmful" has always bugged me...it doesn't seem proper. Shouldn't it be something like "Blah Blah Should Be Considered Harmful"?
Think of it as a newspaper title. There's an implied "XYZ Considered Harmful [by Experts]." That is the original context, a letter written by Dijkstra to the editor of Communications of the ACM, where the editor penned the title.
Technically speaking, if anyone has ever said that Blah Blah is harmful, than it has been considered harmful. The latter construction with Should Be is a more polite form, but the former is also correct if it's ever been true once.
I know what you mean and I agree. I still think it sounds awkward.
"By the author of this piece" is implied.
28 December 2002
lol META - was this post a retort to the "gitflow considered harmful" article?
Not understanding the hate for the title. It's just the author trying to be ironic and clever. Not everything has to be taken literally.
Every time I see one of these "considered harmful" essays, I immediately assume the person writing it considers all their own opinions to be facts and dissenting opinions to always be wrong.
It's funny that I was thinking today about writing an article with this exact same title. "Considered harmful" articles are just one person's opinion, most of the time.
So, is this essay also considered harmful by self-reference?
Another possible title: How to Argue Against Yourself For Fun and Profit.
Maybe not self-referene but reference to the class to which it belongs, cf. Quine's paradox:
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Did you really not see the part of the article at the very beginning addressing this?
Yes, it is considered harmful to the "Considered Harmful" essays.
[deleted]
Yeah, burn this tired rhetorical device to the ground, along with the "open letter".
[deleted]
Thank you
The reason they are in the passive voice is that the original "considered harmful" essay was a letter to the editor, and therefore was titled not by the author, but by the editor[1]. Therefore, to expand out the subject of the sentence, the title was actually saying "Go To Statement Considered Harmful [by Edsger Dijkstra]".
[1]: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EW...
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful