From what I understand, it is mostly the very rigid and prescriptive attitude which the average reader gets from his book, which, if you listen to him talk, was not his intent. He even published a new 2025 edition of “Clean Code” to try and fix this, by making the text less self-assured. So while he may or may not be responsible, he did not intend it.
replyI liked the book, so did my colleagues, and we even had a meetup to discuss the book on how to improve the legacy codebase we had inherited.
replythink you mean "psychological damage". Can you give some examples of what you mean?
replyI’m not who you were replying to, but there was a thread here a couple of years ago in which many people chimed in with examples. I added my two cents here, but the whole discussion is much more worth reading than my gripes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43166836
replyPsychic is a damage type in D&D (and probably other RPGs too), so that is most likely a reference.
reply[flagged]
reply[flagged]
reply"Can you give examples?" was perfectly reasonable. "Are you high?" is not.
replyCalling everyone who downvotes you "incels" is very much against site rules. You've certainly been here long enough to know that. Knock it off.
[flagged]
reply