I think that the extreme word was intended to tip the reader that the OP's analysis was whimsical as well as practical. And not completely formal.

I apologize that the above paragraph does not actually convey the humor it was written to explain.

Unfortunately, no one can be told what humor is. You have to feel it for yourself.

I understand the undertone.

My point is that making fun of something you don't like, however light the fun is, is not a good faith technique. Now, that Doesn't mean bad faith discourse can't be hilarious, Conrad Barski had made that same joke quite well in his comics.

It's just hard to make it the start of a honest discussion on the topic.

Nonsense. It's your choice, as a reader, to refuse to entertain it as an honest discussion, just because you don't like its style. And it's your choice to ascribe bad-faith intentions to the writer just because you don't like its style. (Note that the writer even defined the concept of bad faith as he was referring to it, and was not using it in the way you are.)

It's striking how preferences in programming languages seem to mirror preferences in communication style: You demand that the writer express himself in your preferred style, and if he does not, you accuse him of not writing in good faith. The writer, on the other hand, writes in a liberal style, full of metaphor and references to philosophies outside of computer science.

You only tolerate a narrow range of expression, while he welcomes wide and varied expression. You take offense rather than seeking to understand the intended meaning, while he takes into account others' interpretations and tries to meet in the middle: https://hyperthings.garden/posts/2021-08-30/freeing-your-goa...

There are some life lessons to be found in these exchanges. Postel's Law is not well-followed anymore.

Eh. You can still engage with their point. Exaggerating a bit isn’t the end of the world.

Fair enough. I'm gonna call that person a nazi, that should make a point that maybe they're a bit extreme.