>On the note of software methodologies for teams, I think they are pointless, at least for me. [...] The problem I have with them is their meaning and significance vary between everyone.
This looks to be the crux of your argument and it's a weak one. Just because there are wide ranging opinions on definitions does not mean the ideas have no merit. The idea of "education" means something very different to many people. That doesn't mean that public school, college, or Cisco certification training is "pointless". There are thousands of ideas/words that don't meet 100% agreement. Just the other day, there was a thread on HN about what "mathematical proof" meant. Does that mean someone can legitimately dismiss math proofs as pointless because mathematicians disagree?
Alan Kay's idea of "object-oriented" is different from Bjarne Stroustrup's. Martin Odersky's idea of "functional language" is different from John McCarthy's. Regardless of the differences, there are still good ideas in both OOP and functional paradigms that can improve designs of software architectures.
>I don’t know if I should “love to hear your argument against this” but since this is a blog post from some obscure programmer on the internet, then I’m sure you’ll write it anyways.
I don't understand the conceit you wrote here. If this is how you truly felt, why did you post your blog to HN? I thought the idea was to invite commentary.
This looks to be the crux of your argument and it's a weak one. Just because there are wide ranging opinions on definitions does not mean the ideas have no merit. The idea of "education" means something very different to many people. That doesn't mean that public school, college, or Cisco certification training is "pointless". There are thousands of ideas/words that don't meet 100% agreement. Just the other day, there was a thread on HN about what "mathematical proof" meant. Does that mean someone can legitimately dismiss math proofs as pointless because mathematicians disagree?
Alan Kay's idea of "object-oriented" is different from Bjarne Stroustrup's. Martin Odersky's idea of "functional language" is different from John McCarthy's. Regardless of the differences, there are still good ideas in both OOP and functional paradigms that can improve designs of software architectures.
>I don’t know if I should “love to hear your argument against this” but since this is a blog post from some obscure programmer on the internet, then I’m sure you’ll write it anyways.
I don't understand the conceit you wrote here. If this is how you truly felt, why did you post your blog to HN? I thought the idea was to invite commentary.