And yet. Many developers aren't taught to evaluate coupling and cohesion directly. *I* was never taught to evaluate coupling and cohesion directly. I had to figure it out on my own. And I only did it after watching Simple Made Easy. So the talk somehow is special *to me*.
-
-
IMO, Rich's style is similar to PG's, in that he makes a series of strong but vague claims that could mean many different things. I don't know about Rich, but PG will often respond to criticism by saying that he was misread, even when the majority of readers have the "misreading"
-
I don't personally find this very compelling, but that's my own set of biases (I have correlated beliefs like, Death of the Author, descriptivism over prescriptivism, harm reduction in UX, etc.). I'm not saying Rich would say that, but I think that's the defense presented here.
-
Your summary of your interpretation of the talk is v. clear and is, what, 10 tweets? If that's what was meant, why didn't he say that? It's a long talk, there was plenty of time. Instead, there are much longer sections that could be read as a jeremiad against types and objects.
-
Maybe I'm also biased because I didn't see the talk until I'd seen it cited maybe twenty times in a way that you'd say is wrong, but I don't think it's so surprising that the talk would be so widely cited in "incorrect" ways, if your interpretation is correct.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.