In December 2002, I had studied programming for one semester. I was experienced enough to have read and mostly understood Dijkstra's original essay (and probably had), but not to fully grasp its import. That's all to say, there's probably a lot of context I don't have regarding what this essay was reacting to. So I'm going to respond to this essay from 2026, ignoring whatever may have prompted it. Its basic thesis is that "considered harmful" essays are needlessly inflammatory and we should instead engage in more balanced critiques. My response is:
1) of course balanced critiques are necessary, but
2) sometimes you can come to a conclusion after considering all the pros and cons, and in those cases, you should definitely say so and not equivocate.
IMO that's obviously what Dijkstra did. I don't think he just had some axe to grind against `goto` for his own personal reasons. During my career I've encountered my own share of practices that I think are overused and misunderstood, and I don't need to say what they are (and thus hopefully I'll avoid a flame war), but if you've been at it for more than a few years, then I'm guessing you have some similar opinions.
I actually have nothing against "considered harmful" essays as a whole, and I often learn something from them. That said, of course you shouldn't overstate your position, which would be intellectually dishonest. For most of the problematic practices I've encountered during my career, there are some valid use cases, and it's more that they're misunderstood and misapplied that would warrant calling them out.
In December 2002, I had studied programming for one semester. I was experienced enough to have read and mostly understood Dijkstra's original essay (and probably had), but not to fully grasp its import. That's all to say, there's probably a lot of context I don't have regarding what this essay was reacting to. So I'm going to respond to this essay from 2026, ignoring whatever may have prompted it. Its basic thesis is that "considered harmful" essays are needlessly inflammatory and we should instead engage in more balanced critiques. My response is:
1) of course balanced critiques are necessary, but
2) sometimes you can come to a conclusion after considering all the pros and cons, and in those cases, you should definitely say so and not equivocate.
IMO that's obviously what Dijkstra did. I don't think he just had some axe to grind against `goto` for his own personal reasons. During my career I've encountered my own share of practices that I think are overused and misunderstood, and I don't need to say what they are (and thus hopefully I'll avoid a flame war), but if you've been at it for more than a few years, then I'm guessing you have some similar opinions.
I actually have nothing against "considered harmful" essays as a whole, and I often learn something from them. That said, of course you shouldn't overstate your position, which would be intellectually dishonest. For most of the problematic practices I've encountered during my career, there are some valid use cases, and it's more that they're misunderstood and misapplied that would warrant calling them out.
Anyway, I hope I've made my point.