[ritchiea]

I don't see how this is making things better. Of course people should disagree with DHH, he's one person and we don't have to all agree on everything. In fact it would be far more strange for a programming community to insist on orthodoxy when our problems and work styles certainly differ.

This isn't adding to intelligent dialogue about TDD or best practices any more than the writer is accusing DHH of being detrimental. In fact I thought DHH opened up an interesting dialogue about TDD while he was being the "Fox News of Ruby". There were interesting responses from Martin Fowler, Gary Bernhardt and Kent Beck among others. I felt like the articles and dialogue that I saw in response to DHH really helped me think about programming and the projects I work on. And that's not to dismiss DHH's own comments, which I also found valuable.

This meta DHH slamming seems far more like school yard gossip and mud slinging and "Fox News" than anything DHH actually says. At least even when he's being rude he's actually talking about programming. I've also seen DHH hop on HN threads and provide gists where he refactored code to make his point. That's seriously constructive in a way this talk isn't even aspiring to be.

[colinbartlett]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the meta-commentary that the author provides. He is, after all, encouraging everyone to contribute their own commentary in the same way that Fowler, Bernhardt, and Beck did.

It's sort of like saying we shouldn't ever discuss or scrutinize the reporting done by news outlets. We should only discuss the news they report. I think that's a bit unrealistic.

[ritchiea]

There's nothing wrong with meta commentary. Let me be more specific, this strikes me more as an ad hominem attack than real meta commentary.

[Argorak]

He is more attacking the person cult. DHH has an aura that shadows many other voices, so not DHH himself is the problem, but the reception of DHH.