No, reductio ad absurdum is not an argument. What you wrote is an exercise in swearing. What Linus wrote is getting his point across.

It is certainly possible to describe a code with bad words without hurting the feelings of person who made it, and I think, in order for it to work everyone has to understand that everybody writes “garbage” or “crap” code sometimes, so when it happens, it’s not a big deal; it shouldn’t hurt your professional dignity.

On my job, in team of 4, we do it from time to time and it’s just much mentally easier, streamlined - and yes, constructive to conduct code reviews this way. I understand this may not work for other, bigger teams, but it’s certainly a valid way.

There were ways for him to communicate those same ideas less negatively.

And it was more than just the "garbage" line. It was also things like "If I haven't convinced you of that by now, I don't know what I can say.", and "See how simplistic - and self-centered - your expectation is?".

Writing this way doesn't "streamline" anything. I interpreted it as a negative interaction, and clearly others have as well including the original author (since he said as much in his response).

> Writing this way doesn't "streamline" anything.

Exactly. Blameless and non-violent language can streamline communication. It does this by removing any trigger that would make your communication partner feel defensive. Needlessly emotional and charged language is sure to distract from the subject at hand. When you use calm language, there is only one thing to focus on: the content. When you call someone's code garbage, there are now two things that that person could focus on -- the content and the tone.

To me, it is completely reasonable that the original author might have made a mistake like this. After all, when he shared his findings it seemed like he had found something interesting to me! Many people on this very site commented positively on his efforts. There is nothing "garbage" about the code that he wrote, it just doesn't quite do exactly what he thought it did.

> To me, it is completely reasonable that the original author might have made a mistake like this. After all, when he shared his findings it seemed like he had found something interesting to me! Many people on this very site commented positively on his efforts. There is nothing "garbage" about the code that he wrote, it just doesn't quite do exactly what he thought it did.

It was blogged about, so carries some authority on the topic, and was convincing to readers, but the code did nothing close -- not just "not quite exactly" -- to what it was portrayed to be doing in the benchmarks or article. It is garbage; useless; should be binned. I tried to come up with better adjectives -- "dangerous", "useless", etc -- but they came up short, in subtle ways. Who cares; Linus explains what he means better than the one, concise word.

Speech is not violence.

It always contains some information payload. If you felt triggered by it and failed to parse the content then maybe you're overly emotional.

For some people who aren't it's going to be useful assessment of how bad this code was.

I see this ongoing trend (Twitter) that by limiting the ways in which people can express themselves, you can in theory broaden the recipient circle (to include people who otherwise would be offended and wouldn't read).

In practice you not only limit the ways in which information can be distributed but often also barter away some people who weren't offended and would get useful information this way.

Looking at speech this way is also a bad idea because today's acceptable is tomorrow's unacceptable word and the only way to allow all information is to allow all speech.

All I'm saying is that there is a spectrum of ways to communicate about things like this, from "fuck you you piece of shit how dare you put out this garbage code" to "hey, bud, I see what you're trying to do. But there's a mistake here, which I can explain." Linus chose something closer to the left than the right. You can get the same technical ideas across either way, but as you move toward the latter mode of communication you will decrease the number of recipients who have trouble receiving your message because of its negative emotional content.

"maybe you're overly emotional." Feel free to label me however you please. It does not change the fact that if your goal is to communicate ideas efficiently, my way will help you avoid alienating some folks, and has no practical downside.

There's a big difference between ugly ad hominem comments and saying that your code is bs.

> and has no practical downside That's the place when we differ in opinion. It has one direct downside of preventing some people from expressing their opinions and conveying the point. And another in the long run – setting up a precedents of what can and cannot be said.

> Feel free to label me however you please It was general note not something directed at you.

In my group, we call it "shoddy" code. A bit less brash than "garbage" I think.

If you had followed with multiple paragraphs describing in detail as to why the comment is pure garbage, why it has to be called out, offering context, background information and possible alternatives - then you'd have a valid analogue and a basis for debate. Just sayin'.

Believe it or not, it's one way or another to formulate a critic, and I'm fine with it. However your strongly worded answer lacks arguments, so color me unconvinced.

Except your attempt is not exactly analogus to the situation discussed.

Critique doesn’t have to be peaceful to be constructive