I appreciated the README as written. I immediately understood what kind of environment the author intended this to be used in. A more formal explanation would have degraded the message. Vulgarity doesn't have to taken as judgemental, it can also be a good way to express empathy. The way I read it, the author's intent was the latter.

I wrote a lot of shitty, sprawling enterprise code over the years, and I feel there's no shame in admitting that's what it is :)

In practical terms, what would that achieve?

Professionalism.

"Any time somebody tells you that you shouldn’t do something because it’s “unprofessional,” you know that they’ve run out of real arguments." -- Joel Spolsky

Or there is a whole suite of behavior and conduct with well thought out reasons that have been comprehensively debated over the years that have been put under the rubric of professionalism and there is zero reason to rehash the same arguments over and over and over ad infinitum.

The same professionalism that generated a shitty, sprawling enterprise codebase?

One-word quips sound good on paper, but this is an open source project with engineers as the target audience. It's not seeking (at this time) to bring revenue or make sales, so I'd argue that speaking truth to the problem is more likely to drive up adoption.

Citing professionalism isn't a quip, it's shorthand for a code of conduct and long accepted practices of interaction with others.

May I ask how the word "shitty" more truthful than "poorly written" or "complex"?

> May I ask how the word "shitty" more truthful than "poorly written" or "complex"?

Evokes emotions people affected by a situation can sympathize with more effectively, which by virtue of establishing a shared emotional bond over a topic helps the developer convey not just the situation but the frustrations of the situation more effectively than one might expect "poorly written" or "complex" to do alone.

> Citing professionalism isn't a quip, it's shorthand for a code of conduct and long accepted practices of interaction with others.

The code of conduct isn't uniform, so it can't be used effectively as shorthand for such. But at this point we're in the weeds.

Again, no short-term revenue prospects, just a tool OP wants to socialize to make a few lives easier. If you have an objection over verbiage, that's fine, but it's an exhibition of professionalism from yourself to the OP to build a sound defense of your position as to how it would help the engineer to self-censor the description of a tool where the audience by-and-large may not care.

Up to you. My point is the engineer doesn't need to suppress who they are in this specific context, and my point to you is it shouldn't impact your usage of what looks to be an effective short-term debugging tool.

Strongly disagree. How specifically does profanity affect the authoritativeness of the code?

Your comment comes off as out of touch and old fashioned.