[joe_the_user]

Well, the whole comment you link doesn't really deny that Dijkstra could be arrogant and dismissive, it just goes on to say essentially that he was a lovable old coot and that they listened to him only as much as they wanted; "Dijkstra was much more funny than annoying for anyone who had any sense of self. The two biggest problems in our not-quite-a-field were those who listened to him too carefully and those who didn't listen to him carefully enough."

[ben7799]

I read it more like people back then weren't so sensitive and didn't even take that kind of straight talk as arrogance and dismissiveness.

But then maybe Alan Kay will show up and clarify.

I'm just old enough to remember when corporate culture was like this too. It used to be OK to say when people were wrong or get mad when programming errors lit the building on fire. That started to become NOT OK in the past 15 years. A lot of older engineers really had to to work hard to adapt because it's so frustrating today when people make careless mistakes over and over again and no one can say a word without being accused of not being a team player or something.

People were more likely to admit their own mistakes then too. In that environment it was better to come clean then try to hide a mistake even when coming forward can solve the problem faster.

We've overcorrected this stuff.. correcting it helps make the field more inclusive but at some point after we're diverse and inclusive we need to walk some of this behavior back a bit.

[alan-kay]

"Back then" was the 60s (whose decade really ran from about 1963 to 1973).

A good quote from Dave Evans (to faculty members who complained about a genius faculty member who could be abrasive): "We don't care if they're prima donnas as long as they can sing".

As I've mentioned in a few other places, including this forum, most people found Edsger to be funny. He obviously enjoyed wielding English for comments, biting, snide, and otherwise. He loved to project snide arrogance in his particular highly developed style.

A good friend of his was Bob Barton -- I think even more of a genius -- and perhaps even more idiosyncratic, pointed and neurotic. Barton was kind of on-stage most of the time, and had truly eloquent extemporaneous opinions.

But so what? Listen to Dave Evans, and then listen to what great and interesting people have to say.

One of the definitions for these people is that whether they are right or wrong, or whether you agree with them or not, what they say is so interesting that it absolutely demands to be thought about.

You can't beat that kind of help for your own thinking processes.

[galaxyLogic]

Part of the reason may be the advent of online. It is much easier to offend people online than in person for several reasons: 1. You do the offending in public 2. You can not get and give immediate feedback on how what you're saying affects your counter-part 3. What you say is carved in stone