look at any of the bullet points in the article. it's very hard to constructivly criticise any of them, they are all so vapid. typical of beck's writings.
Well if it's so hard to criticise them, that could be an indication that there is some truth in them.
> they are all so vapid
I like that he doesn't make sweeping statements. Because in software development, to quote another great author, there is no silver bullet.
That's not a popular story to tell when you're writing a book or speaking in a conference, people like to hear simple black and white statements. But the fact of the matter is, reality is much more nuanced.
I think it's more likely that if you can't find anything constructive to say about it, that maybe you don't have a valid argument (your original post was an ad hominem attack after all).
You are attacking the person's writing capability, implying that the article is not good because they wrote something before that you disagreed with. You're trying to argue semantics here, but it doesn't really matter because either way your argument is fallacious.
