It's a serious problem that this is currently the topvoted comment. It means that people are upvoting it because they agree with the sentiment, while not realizing that neither their nor slavak's opinion of Atwood's writing should be interesting to anyone. They shouldn't be interesting, because the opinion is on the one hand unsupported and is on the other hand based on the fundamental attribution error [1].

I say unsupported, because if anyone actually read the supposed supporting links, there would at least be a discussion concerning the first link in these comments. At least, I don't see how the contents of that post disqualifies Atwood. I don't think upvoters are actually reviewing the evidence to see if they agree with this reason for disliking Atwood.

Concerning the second link: if you write off Atwood based on occasional mistakes, you are committing the fundamental attribution error [1]: thinking that someone, and therefore all his writing, must be worthless, simply because he sometimes writes nonsense. Never forget that smart and interesting people also make mistakes.

Atwood takes the time to air and explain his ideas about programming. He's not a great writer or a deep thinker [2], but that doesn't matter: he is one of us thinking about what it means to be one of us. I find all of his thoughts interesting, if only to see how someone can come to a different conclusion based on the same premises. They are interesting even if I disagree and even if he is wrong, because it shines a light on how colleagues may think about things. For instance, the second link clearly warns me that I can never take for granted that someone understands what NP-completeness means and have to verify it. That makes even that post worthwhile.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

[2] Though certainly not a bad writer or a shallow thinker

You make a good point here but the fact remains that Jeff Atwood is a pseudo-expert, not a serious authority. His opinion shouldn't be trusted. About anything. Ever.

Each time I see some piece of writing from him, on a topic about which I am reasonably knowledgeable, I find some error. As a consequence, I tend to distrust anything from him on any topic about which I am not as familiar with.

Appeal to authority (or in this case the reverse) is a common logical fallacy.

Appeal to authority can be a perfectly valid inductive method when used as a statistical syllogism. It is only a fallacy in the realm of formal logic, where the truth or falsehood of a statement is independent of its source.

This is a common but quite annoying misconception. The following is a perfectly valid deduction: 1. Authority A is correct on matters in subject X p percect of the time. 2. A claims Y regarding a matter in subject X. --> Therefore, Y is correct with probability p.

Jeff has never had any respect as a security professional, so it's lucky he's not one. At best, he raises a lot of awareness. At worst, his advice is misleading. He generally prints retractions when he finds he was wrong (and asks why he made the mistake), and that is often more informative than the original post.

He's popular because he's high volume, reasonable quality. In the days when his blog was at it's prime, there was a reasonable article to read every day.