"Considered harmful" considered harmful

""Considered harmful" considered harmful" considered harmful.

There are only two hard problems in computer science: "cache invalidation, naming things, and humorous recursion.

I really hate the "X Considered harmful" type of articles, like by who? Inevitably they try to fake a larger consensus where one does not exist.

Just be hones and say "I think X is a bad idea"...

Exactly. Use simple language. State what you like / dislike about something and provide a compelling argument. Don't try to add false legitimacy with a "considered harmful" title. If your argument has a broad consensus, then state exactly which groups have come to that conclusion.

And dogmas, too!

Your dogmas are the heuristics you take for granted that I know to be bad/false, and vice versa.

Dogma is the simplifications we teach to children (and students and junior devs) so they don't have to contemplate the full complexity of reality.

The problem is when we start to attach our identity to these dogma, and hold them so precious that we will never give them up.

Without our dogma/heuristics we get lost. But we need to know how to give up on the ones that are no longer useful.

I think you are conflating "dogma" with "mental model". The accepted meaning of "dogma" is a strong belief that adherents are not willing to discuss rationally.

He's using the word as a term of art.

"Dogma" is the word we use to decribe the kind of beliefs other people have that they are not willing to discuss rationally.

Most of us will have a hard time recognizing our own dogma.

My claim is that we all have things we believe dogmatically. They for the axioms of our mental models. Take away the dogma, and our entire mental framework risks getting shattered.

If we completely fail to understand this, though, we are at risk of constructing rationalistic (as opposed to rational) frameworks on top, in believe in them absolutely. This can lead to fanatical movements such as Islamic suicide bombers, "Objetivist" capitalists, Extinctin Rebellion or Conquistador Missionaries.

And also all sorts of cargo cults in software development.

>> My claim is that we all have things we believe dogmatically. They for the axioms of our mental models.

I agree but think of it as a scalar. Some mental models are assigned a "conviction" of 1.0 - that could be considered dogma. Some (like the expectation of what tomorrow's weather might be like) may have a "conviction" of 0.3.

Sounds like a Bayesian Network, which is precisely how I tend to think about it.

Though I think one aspect is missing, namely something describing the emotional loss that will be felt if a dogma has to be rejected.

In fact, the most destructive dogmas may be those where the older has serious subconscious doubt about the validity of the belief, but where their entire identiy may be shattered if they have to give it up.

Questioning such dogma tends to become very strong taboos or potentially heresies worthy of cancelling or even death.