In technical discourse, absolute declarations like "foo is always better than bar" seem efficient—but they carry hidden costs. As highlighted in a recent analysis from Outerproduct.net, such statements inevitably trigger defensive reactions from specialists: "What you call a 'bar' I know as a 'frobnicated foo'—and frobnicated foos are obviously superior." This reaction alienates precisely the audience who might otherwise agree with your core argument.

Names in technology are notoriously ambiguous and context-dependent. What one engineer considers a "microservice" might resemble a "nanoservice" to another. When we lead with absolute comparisons, we:

  1. Invite Definitional Debates: Listeners fixate on terminology disagreements rather than substantive discussion
  2. Alienate Potential Allies: Those with nuanced understanding of "foo" disengage when hearing blanket condemnations
  3. Oversimplify Complex Tradeoffs: Rarely is any solution universally "better"—context determines suitability

"Replace pesky names with descriptions," advises the analysis. Framing arguments around problem/solution contexts—not loaded terms—creates more productive dialogue. Describing "a pattern that solves X through Y mechanism" avoids triggering preconceptions about "foos" or "bars."

This approach serves dual purposes: It grounds debates in specific technical constraints rather than tribal affiliations, while making concepts accessible to broader audiences. The piece further cautions against publishing complaints without constructive purpose, noting that "empathy always helps" when advocating for change.

For technical leaders and developers, the implications are clear: Avoid absolutism in RFCs, documentation, and code reviews. Instead, structure arguments as: "In [specific scenario], approach A addresses [defined problem] more effectively than B because..." This nuance builds consensus—especially when discussing contentious patterns like state management or architectural paradigms.

Ultimately, technical persuasion isn't about winning terminology battles—it's about collaboratively solving problems. As the analysis concludes, mindful framing turns potential conflicts into opportunities for shared understanding.

Source: On Complaining Well by Outerproduct.net