The title should be: “I don’t like Mtime comparison. Here’s why.”
If your name is Dijkstra and it’s 1968 feel free to use the phrase “considered harmful”, otherwise use plain language.
If your name is Dijkstra and it’s 1968 feel free to use the phrase “considered harmful”, otherwise use plain language.
The original title of the letter, as submitted to CACM, was "A Case Against the Goto Statement", but CACM editor Niklaus Wirth changed the title to "Goto Statement Considered Harmful". Regarding this new title, Donald Knuth quipped that "Dr. Goto cheerfully complained that he was always being eliminated."
Reading that same link, Wirth didn’t invent the cliché, either.
The phrase "GOTO considered harmful" was actually used by Niklaus Wirth, not Edsger Dijkstra. Dijkstra had submitted his letter with the title "A Case Against the Goto Statement"; and Wirth, as editor, changed it.
But also, it was already a journalistic cliché outside of computer science before Wirth applied it to Dijkstra's letter.
What's wrong with the usage? It is short and concise.
"Considered harmful" is misleading because the passive voice suggests some kind of general consensus which usually doesn't exist.
The issue with the phrase is, that it is hopelessly overused also for things that are purely subjective or way to general.
It's such a ridiculously inflationary overused meme to the point that it's getting annoying.
There are other contenders: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31836787
(In hindsight, I completely forgot "X shades of Y" in this list)