back
4 comments
That's not an Ad Hominem.
I assume you are responding to me. Yes, yes it is. From Wiki "Argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument." AlexeyBrin is implying that because greenyoda may not have written any programming books, that his argument is less valid. AlexeyBrin's argument is not refuting greenyoda's central point, that it's somewhat strange that the blog post author has written a programming book about Ruby, despite not being aware of what some argue are the language's commonly used features.
Sorry; I was actually responding to AlexeyBrin on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5157519

Sorry for the confusion ;)

Ah, the good ol' ad hominem.
I did write about twelve books and I still consider OP's point to be very valid.

The blog entry is great in that it shows how collaborating over the Internet can lead to improvement but it's indeed a bit concerning that someone who didn't know what polymorphism was had been publishing a programming book.

Clay wrote a book about RubyMotion (a Ruby compiler for iOS), not a book that teaches OOP. His knowledge about polymorphism is not so relevant for this book (I think he "knows" what polymorphism is but he was genuinely amazed by the way you can use it for this particular case).
> very valid

Validity is a binary state. Don't modify it with an adverb.

How is that relevant?
Just pointing that his little ad hominem attack has no place on HN.
It would be an ad hominem if the book was about gardening but it's not, it's about programming.