[bediger]

This article contains a good observation: he wraps his key idea in layers of link-bait and nerd-traps, shallow but emotionally charged ideas that side-track all but the strongest minds.

Hey, this idea is my Intellectual Property! I invented it to keep the morons at bay during Usenet's Eternal September, beginning with AOL, Prodigy and CompuServe's addition to Usenet in 1993. I always tried to put "lightning rod" prose into any Usenet article to divert the idiots into responding with idiocy. Only people with some knowledge can pass up a "lightning rod" and deal with the real issues.

[pavelludiq]

In many of his usenet articles Eric Naggum admits to putting traps for 'stupid people' in his posts. Anyone who's read any amount of Naggum rants knows this had interesting results. For instance, people would 'suggest' he use more polite language, and in response would get flamed.

[technomancy]

It's as old as Plato's Republic; it's hilarious how people (starting with Socrates's fictional debate partners) get sidetracked into "no, if the city were like that you would need [...] for it to work" while forgetting the fact that it's just a metaphor for exploring justice.

[iamgilesbowkett]

Fun facts! I first read Plato before I was 16, and first read Plato in the original Greek before I was 20. Those are the monkey see, monkey do years.

However, although I think Raganwald is basically onto something, it's not entirely deliberate. It never occurred to me that after complaining how Bundler breaks convention over configuration, people would tell me that configuration options are the solution to "bundle exec foo."

This is the kind of thing Reg might refer to as a trap, but there's a simple general principle that generates traps. Trace your idea from a specific to a principle and watch how few people can follow you there.

Also, I've actually blogged that Alan Kay quote many times, and I try to hammer the point whenever I have a chance, because I think it's one of those overlooked bits of genius that really helps anyone who gives it the thought it deserves. For instance: anything which is driven by fashion is going to go in cycles. What does that mean?

Clothing of course is driven by fashion. Lots of fashion designers raid thrift shops to get new ideas from old clothes. Fashion drives music. Bands re-record new versions of old songs all the time, dance music constantly samples and recycles itself, rappers sample old grooves and bring them back to new life and put them in front of new audiences. So maybe if you work in an industry driven by fashion, a pop culture, you'll want to dig into the past and find "new" ideas to steal. Like the revolutionary idea that GUIs should use MVC, for example. The big "new" idea in client-side JavaScript is literally the oldest idea there is when it comes to UI.

I mentioned this in another thread, connected to my actual rant, but I'll say it here again: I predicted JS MVC (eg Backbone) in 2005 or 2006, and built my own crappy version in 2007 or 2008. It's not magic future genius powers. When you know it's fashion, and you know fashion is cyclical, you can just watch the wheel turning.

But I don't think the Alan Kay thing is the only thing in there worth thinking about. I basically put in stuff for arguers to argue about and stuff for thinkers to think about. Some people love arguing and hate thinking! That's not my style, but I don't mind if they have fun too.