Author here.

I read that essay a while ago and reread it before publishing my post.

I don't think the author makes a good case. They make bare assertions without examples and without evidence, so it's unconvincing.

For example, they say that a "Considered Harmful" essay:

> often serves to inflame whatever debate is in progress, and thus makes it that much harder for a solution to be found through any means.

But this could be true of any essay.

More to the point, I think that the tone of the essay or post matters more. Case in point, my "Dynamic Linking Needs to Die" post probably inflames the debate more than this new "Considered Harmful" post.

Maybe "Considered Harmful" essays have a reputation for inflaming the debate, and there's an argument to be made for that. But I personally don't think my post is one that follows that reputation.

Also, because I was writing a post about a pre-existing "Considered Harmful" essay, it was natural to use it, especially since I needed to make it clear that my previous post is harmful too.