Well, he is a part of the Ruby community, and they do often seem to often favor emotional arguments conveyed through harsh language.

What a crass, and inaccurate, generalization.

Now, I'm not equipped to perform a statistically valid sampling of all conference talks, but pervasive anecdotal evidence lends credence to this notion.

Specifically, this comes to mind:

http://lifehacker.com/5859392/swearing-to-make-your-point-a-...

As well as this:

http://www.zedshaw.com.sharedcopy.com/rants/51489cec9386f7c1...

And this:

http://david.heinemeierhansson.com/posts/15-potty-mouths

There are more, but I don't think I need to internet-sleuth the entire set of well-known Ruby / Web personalities to demonstrate the point: a base lack of professionalism abounds.

Even thirty more examples would not neccessarily mean Rubyists are "often" like this. There are tens of thousands of them.

If ruby-talk, #ruby-lang, ruby-core, and Ruby conference talks were typically littered with swearing, there'd be a point. As it is, it's a generalisation formed off the back of a handful of cases. Stereotyping, if you will.

I've been covering the news in the Ruby world for about 6 years now, almost full time. People are inventing these silly stereotypes as a way to discredit the language and it's users, it's not based in reality.

... Yet there are a few people who agreed and think the same way as he is...

There are people who think those of certain races and genders typically act in a certain way too.

If you can't see the point because of the "harsh language" then I apologize, I might publish a politically correct version for you then :)

There Are Lots Of Seemingly Trivial Ways To Make Your Text Harder To Read.

yOu mAy sAy tHat pEople wHo hAve tRouble rEading sUch tExt sHould jUst mAke mOre eFfort.

But.you.are.writing.the.blog.,.so.surely.you.want.to.be.as.widely.read.as.possible.?.

Postel's law (gently reformulated) is important when you have one-to-many communication. "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".

Heh, I really liked the analogy with Postel's law, and I guess you're right. The main criticising I've received about the blog post has been about the swearing, so I guess I could skip that next time.

The harsh language doesn't convey the point at all. It's an appeal to emotion, and has no place in a rational argument.

This is not (only) a rational argument, but a call to action, and that requires an appeal to emotion.

To everyone who is offended (or even just somehow unhappy/less convinced) by swearing, I strongly suggest not living in Scotland.

Here, "fuck"/"fucking" is often a filler word and "cunt" can be a friendly way to start a sentence or refer to your friends.

I don't get offended by any words or sayings, only by their intent.

Also, there were enough spelling and grammatical errors to be distracting. The author should proofread before publishing.

I corrected a couple of those upon indication from readers. I hope there aren't any more :)

But swearing is a personal signature. (Anyway sorry if I offended anyone.)

Having swearing as a personal signature is like having a tattoo. It doesn't make you any "cooler", and everyone does it so it's not much of a signature.

It's not that it's offensive, it just says you are unable to convey the strength of your argument without the vulgarities. You lose critical (logical) thinkers when you resort to crass language; primarily because it says your argument relies on emotion, not logic.

Just like a tattoo, it shouldn't distract critical thinkers when judging the contents and the point of my argument.

In a discipline such as computer science, appeals to emotion are inherently untrustworthy and distracting. A reader shouldn't have to shift through pandering rhetoric to find the kernel of a supportable argument.

My article has nothing to do with computer science, but with a human community built around a technology.

As I say to everyone who complains about swearing: Go fuck yourself.

I'm sure you're very tough and edgy but that doesn't change the fact that incessant swearing is childish and annoying. It also makes choice words too common, further reducing their punch.

I'm no spring chicken, mind you, I wasn't offended by the swearing - it was just mildly annoying and distracting from the (pretty well thought-out) message. :)