That's a good advice, isn't it? Thanks for pointing to it.

But it is interesting still, how many seem to read the text it feels to them touching their privates and need to make themselves vent off.

> how many seem to read the text it feels to them touching their privates and need to make themselves vent off.

Not dissimilar to those choosing to highlight the worst aspects of comments rather than addressing them in good faith. Please don't make things worse.

Pardon, then you may have misread along my comment, that was not ill intended, just seeing that the article polarizes.

Is it really that surprising that a post written in a confrontational, argumentative style produces similar responses?

It is an attack on using ligatures in code. It's not hiding that. That's the point of the article.

It's not an "attack". It's an argument against. "Attack" implies some sort of animus directed against the recipient; e.g. an attack on unhoused people, etc. An attack implies violence.

An argument, even one with strong language, can be about whether or not a tool is fit-for-purpose. This is allowed. This is discourse.

Right now, politically, a lot of arguments are actually attacks (on specific groups of people) in disguise, and I sympathize with your confusion. But arguments do exist. Not every argument is an attack.

I can't link to this book often enough: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29363252-conflict-is-not...

You can attack an idea. I don't know why you think it assumes animus against the recipient.

Yes, and you can also shoot, strangulate, or set an idea on fire. Metaphorically speaking.

But metaphor is imprecision and unnecessary colour. Be clear and precise. Use specific language.

This is admittedly prescriptive usage, but I am prescribing this antidote for an overheated era, full of overwrought language.

This arbitrary restriction on language seems doubleplus ungood.

Wait till you read Strunk & White

When I check someones your code and edit it, I get plain text - no ligatures, fonts, highlighting, themes, etc are included. I don't know what dev setup forces visual choices on coders, but that sounds like bad idea...

> if you’re prepar­ing your code for oth­ers to read—whether on screen or on pa­per—skip the lig­a­tures.

Here he's referring to code in books, slide decks, and during presentations, not for editing.

Just below the section the above quote is pulled from, Butterick explains

> One in­spi­ra­tion for this piece was the La­TeX crowd, who would rou­tinely write me to in­sist their ty­pog­ra­phy was in­fal­li­ble. And yet. I kept see­ing La­TeX-pre­pared books that in­cor­rectly sub­sti­tuted curly quotes for back­ticks.... “But code sam­ples like these aren’t really am­bigu­ous, be­cause every­one knows that you don’t type the curly quotes.” ... But many of to­day’s pro­gram­ming lan­guages (e.g., Racket) ac­cept UTF-8 in­put.... So am­bi­gu­ity is a real pos­si­bil­ity. Same prob­lem with ligatures.

Hmm, maybe suboptimal for publishing. That said most publications i read have no code but beautifully rendered equations. I find these more efficient at getting the point across than code… but i guess mileage vary