In praise of dhh
111 points by EvanHahn
111 points by EvanHahn
DHH is not gone. He's always been a brat. It's the world where being a brat is not fine which is gone. All of them are therefore now able to express themselves as they see fit.
Part of his thing has always been being a bit 'edgy'.
I've always preferred Matz's projected personality far more than dhh's.
It's the world where being a brat is not fine which is gone.
Do you think so? I'm under the impression that nowadays more brats have been cancelled. IMO the problem started with social networks, when every "uncivilized" started to find they were not alone, and in the case of DHH, that they would be praised.
Social media is definitely the problem. Trying to cancel someone has serious side effects most people don’t consider..
When you make an accusation (real or false) and try to cancel someone, you lose the assumed norms of society, because they know there won’t be any meaningful consequences.
The thing about dhh was… he was right! A lot of the time. Not always. No one bats a thousand. But often, often enough. I never followed him closely, I read maybe 1% of his output. But overall I felt aligned with what he had to say.
I've realized the less experience I had the more I agreed with DHH technically. As I got older I got to question a lot of his technical decisions. Now mostly I read any purely technical ideas with great skepticism. Being impressionable and eager at a young age does that.
I regret to inform you that, after a long struggle, he eventually lost his fight against the parasitic fungus that was taking over his brain,14 and died. The exact timeline is unclear, but we suspect he succumbed to his illness sometime in 2020.
That removes too much personal responsibility from himself for his own opinions. People don't suddenly align themselves with alt-right ideology and science denialism as if afflicted by a disease at no fault of their own. DHH didn't wake up one day and think "why don't I give this modern take on fascism a chance?", he already had the inception of his current ideals way back when.
I think it's about control. He is attacking things that people use to otherwise have power over him. Yes, he believes the things he says. But he's emphasizing and focusing on divisive things as a mechanism to drive out those that won't kiss his ring.
Or to frame it another way: Even if you agree with his hateful positions: he is not your ally. He will attack you, and the community if it means he retains control.
My warning to omarchy fans isn't: "He loves writing racist dog whistles." (Though true) Rather it is: "he will burn your community to the ground if it means he gets to lord over the ashes. It's not 'the omarchy community' it's 'the David community' and always will be"
I think it's about control. He is attacking things that people use to otherwise have power over him.
I think this is pretty clearly true. And while I appreciate the author's reasons for trying to defuse reaction, this brain-worms framing basically absolves DHH of responsibility for his own behavior.
Powerful people who are shitty like that choose it for ultimately rational reasons. It's only by understanding the rationality of the behavior can we possibly hope to master and prevent it.
Subjectivism leads to nihilism because if people are just naturally defective then there's nothing we can do. Objectivism leads to nihilism because if we're just tossed around by fate we likewise cannot change our situation. Only by grasping the interplay between the objective and subjective will we gain insight into specifically what needs to change to produce pro-social behavior.
It's only by understanding the rationality of the behavior can we possibly hope to master and prevent it.
"he likes being an asshole because it gives him pleasure, and he can get away with it" is a perfectly rational explanation that helps no one.
i'm not absolving him of anything. it's more that I think it's pointless: he has moved beyond shame or culpability. i hope for his sake that he finds help, but in the meantime he is so beneath our contempt that we're better off pretending that he died.
so, why are other people enabling his behaviour?
Thanks for spelling out agreement and adding on. I largely agree with your response, I want to add on some perspective:
absolves
I think that reading takes the narrative device a little to literally. He's an adult and making his own choices. I don't think this piece absolves him of anything. My read was that it is attempting to give permission to someone who previously respected him to distance the parts of him they liked from the parts that do harm to the community today. (And unlike code, there's more than just one interpretation that can be valid).
Powerful people who are shitty like that choose it for ultimately rational reasons.
I also agree but might add on "to them". a lot of what people do is irrational and emotional (and that's okay, humans think fast and slow). But even when making irrational choices they like to think they're being rational about it.
I'm also unsure if he's aware or what he's doing or not. As in: impact versus intent. But I also don't think the intent matters if: he keeps doing it, and it keeps having the same impact.
It's only by understanding the rationality of the behavior can we possibly hope to master and prevent it.
I agree, but don't totally see a path forward in this scenario. It's unclear how an understanding of his desire for power and control can help to get him to stop isolating and hurting the community. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
My read was that it is attempting to give permission to someone who previously respected him to distance the parts of him they liked from the parts that do harm to the community today.
Thank you, I'm glad this came through.
That removes too much personal responsibility from himself for his own opinions.
DHH is certainly responsible for who he has become, but the author of this post is not obligated to make their writing about that blame and responsibility if that's not what they want to talk about.
I don't think I was implying that. The article touches on a bunch of different topics, I don't feel it should've expanded on anything in particular. It's just important to highlight that the alt-right types aren't themselves victims; at times they're characterized as unwilling participants in this global right-wing movement.
It's just important to highlight that the alt-right types aren't themselves victims; at times they're characterized as unwilling participants in this global right-wing movement.
Good point.
As I got older I got to question a lot of his technical decisions.
Any examples?
Personally, I still agree with him on most of his engineering hot-takes. Web-standards-first, moving away from heavy JS, and self-hosting being a reasonable thing.
However, I couldn't disagree with him more on literally everything else in the universe.
Not the OP, but I do think that people align themselves as if afflicted by a disease, yes.
It's a good post, but it could use some indication that the title is satirical. I probably saw it three or four times and assumed it was going to be dogshit until I clicked this link (which fails to convey the title) and saw from the comments that the title is misleading.
If you’ve read this far, you probably have some context for why I am writing this post. You are probably one of the many thousands of people who have participated in this community. If you’ve read this far, I hope also that I have convinced you of my earnestness, that I am writing to you in good faith.
Most people are not going to make it that far; they are going to immediately close the tab. I guess this must be intentional, but I'd like to understand why.
On the other hand, the people that would skip reading this because of the title already have enough context and share positions with the OP on a lot. It also will attract people who would otherwise likely avoid an article critical of DHH and it might change a subset of those peoples' minds.
yeah, i'm trying to reach people who would NOT click on an article that reads "david is a huge piece of shit".
I don't understand why this is on-topic in this site but the removed post about funding of software projects/research was deleted as off-topic after dozens of comments and similar amount of upvotes is not.
I understand that the removed post was not directly about software development, but:
(I can't recall the exact title of the deleted post but it was about a researcher explaining why he doesn't accept military funding for his research. I was sad to see it disappear because the discussion was interesting to me.)
I suggest the title be changed to "In praise of 'dhh'" with the quotes around dhh indicating that it's an ironic appreciation.
But it's not purely an ironic appreciation - it's an appreciation of who he was, and what he did back then - as well as a comprehensive denunciation of what he has chosen to become. At least, that's how I read it - more tragedy than irony, if you will.
As you get older, you see more of the world and you carry more stories, contradictions, and nuance. That means you also have more to offer. DHH has a platform and a bigger platform always multiplies scrutiny. When your words reach thousands, people read them in the worst possible light as often as the best; intent matters less than impact, and minor missteps get amplified into verdicts.
If you ignore the fact that he's so much in the spotlight, he's been right about a lot (developer ergonomics, conventions over configuration, the taste that he set with Rails, etc.) and wrong on some things (tone, provocation, and a few culture-war takes that land poorly). Measured against other high-profile tech figures, his misses aren’t uniquely egregious; he's the classic, opinionated public voice. The current wave of condemnation feels wrong to me.
You can call out specific bad arguments or clumsy framing without leaping to maximal labels. Even with his London post in mind, he's not a fascist but that's clearly what a lot of people on here see in him.
I don’t think every think piece on David has to exhaustively list out his pattern of behaviors. But if you want those, plenty exist here’s a random one pulled from the hat for being recent: https://blogs.gnome.org/alatiera/2025/11/06/dhh-and-omarchy-midlife-crisis/
And this is one I wrote awhile ago that focuses on a specific topic that touches on a lot of developers: ADHD. https://www.schneems.com/2024/11/21/my-red-hot-adhd-programming-affliction/.
On a totally different topic: thanks for the insta crate. I’ve been enjoying it recently. Makes updating snapshot output much less toilsome.
I don’t think every think piece on David has to exhaustively list out his pattern of behaviors. But if you want those, plenty exist here’s a random one pulled from the hat for being recent
I read some of them and I definitely don’t agree with quite a few of them (eg: the London piece). But I think we're discussing him not because of his opinions but his opinions shared with the platform that he has.
I’ve been enjoying it recently. Makes updating snapshot output much less toilsome.
That's awesome to hear. Makes me happy :)
//Edit: this sentence missed a “don’t”
I read some of them and I definitely agree with quite a few of them (eg: the London piece).
That's disappointing to read.
But I think we're discussing him not because of his opinions but his opinions shared with the platform that he has.
That's how it works always, isn't it? No one cares or argues over what some random anonymous person says in a forgotten forum or in a conversation between two people walking down the street. But people who have reach/power/influence can affect not only the conversation but the material conditions of others, so they get discussed.
That's disappointing to read.
Thankfully I did not write what I intended to write. It missed a don’t.
people who have reach/power/influence can affect not only the conversation but the material conditions of others, so they get discussed.
Yes, but they are fallible people like everybody else and it's fine to call out their misbehavior. It turns into a problem when then by extension everything they are doing or people who they are associated with are dragged into that too. See for instance the current Framework Laptop debate. I think framework does really cool stuff and I don't think it's appropriate to vilify them for jumping on the Omarchy popularity.
I also have some issues with Omarchy (it does some things I don't quite like), but at the same time I think it's great that new people are brought to Linux and Open Source.
I think framework does really cool stuff and I don't think it's appropriate to vilify them for jumping on the Omarchy popularity.
I don't think it's to "vilify" Framework to ask for some responsibility. The issue here is that instead of writing "the amount of focus we dedicated to omarchy was not balanced and we'll do better" they have instead doubled down on a "big tent approach" and disclosed a monetary sponsorship to DHHs own conference.
The issue here is that instead of writing "the amount of focus we dedicated to omarchy was not balanced and we'll do better" they have instead doubled down on a "big tent approach" and disclosed a monetary sponsorship to DHHs own conference.
It's fair for you to see that as the wrong call but from where I'm standing, it's not inherently better to exclude Omarchy from that big tent. What you're asking for is essentially withholding support from a project because you disagree with its creator. That's a legitimate stance, but not necessarily a widely shared one. There's substantial support for Omarchy (and maybe even more than the opposition) and using the framework to amplify a disagreement with DHH doesn't seem productive. For all of DHH's missteps, Omarchy remains a solid project that also can have positive aspects for Linux' adoption among developers. It may not make the best technical choices, but it moves Linux into new communities. Supporting that, in isolation, makes sense.
That said, "the big tent" strategy has limits and I do think that Framework has a decision to make further down the line. If inclusion means letting in people who push others out, that undermines the tent itself. There's a real risk that having Omarchy involved will make some contributors uncomfortable. That's a tradeoff the Framework folks will have to weigh: who belongs in the tent, and what balance of values and contributions it's willing to live with.
But IMO it's better for frameworks to make their own calls than to face coordinated campaigns demanding exclusion.
Framework I don't think are the problem here. They are just in a tough spot because various people ask them for ideological alignment and there is no winning there. In that situation you are destined to upset and disappoint some.
What you're asking for is essentially withholding support from a project because you disagree with its creator.
Just to be clear: I've not asked for Framework to exclude Omarchy, nor stop sponsorships. I've asked Nivar, on their forum, why their Twitter account was obsessively promoting Omarchy over other long standing projects. This has been ignored and not answered. I don't find this particularly weird? They are a SV tech startup and thus uncritically follow figures, like DHH, for cheap and easy clout.
Omarchy remains a solid project that also can have positive aspects for Linux' adoption among developers. It may not make the best technical choices, but it moves Linux into new communities.
It's a not a "solid" project though. It looks pretty, but the technical foundation is extremely poor. The question you want to ask is if poor projects like Omarchy is going to hurt the reputation Linux among developers, instead of guiding them to projects which does have technical merit and a strong foundation. There are several options, none of them based on Arch.
Framework I don't think are the problem here. They are just in a tough spot because various people ask them for ideological alignment and there is no winning there. In that situation you are destined to upset and disappoint some.
I think it's clear at this point that the entire marketing gimmick Framework was employing early was just a cheap marketing ploy they are abandoning for the sake of continued VC funding. They've already betrayed their principles once for the sake of an AI AMD CPU, soldering the RAM on the Framework Desktop motherboard, and I doubt they'll make better decisions going forward.
So I don't think you can only view the community reaction as solely a response to the DHH drama, I think you also need to consider the fact that the politics of Framework was just marketing for the sake of sales. They where never aligned with anything, and this disappointing a loyal consumer base that initially helped them. This is ofc not everyone, but considering both their community moderators and now some their ambassadors have stepped down or taken a break do speak to this.
It's a not a "solid" project though. It looks pretty, but the technical foundation is extremely poor.
I don't think it's poor, I think it's just barebones. A lot of projects begin life like this. I can point at many projects that started life like that.
Ad Framewor: You might not agree with some of Framework's decisions, but among all the laptop manufacturers out there, they remain one of the very few that truly excel in repairability and upgradability. Even if their choices don't meet your personal standards, they deserve credit for trying to change how laptops are built. As for the VC angle, realistically, I don’t see how a company like this could exist or scale without it.
This is ofc not everyone, but considering both their community moderators and now some their ambassadors have stepped down or taken a break do speak to this.
And that will be Framework's problem to deal with.
What, particularly, do you consider to be "vilifying" as opposed to legitimate criticism? Is there an acceptable way to criticize Framework for giving money and press to racists, or is it categorically unacceptable in your opinion?
Is there an acceptable way to criticize Framework for giving money and press to racists, or is it categorically unacceptable in your opinion?
If you strongly object to Framework supporting DHH, the clearest way to express that is by choosing not to buy their products. The line gets crossed when that personal stance turns into pressure on others to adopt the same position (eg: Framework or other Framework customers). People will weigh DHH's s actions differently, and not everyone will share the same priorities, particularly in the context of Omarchy or Rails. I also disagree with some of DHH’s behavior, but not to the point where I can’t recognize the positive contributions of his.
money and press to racists
I personally don't think what DHH expresses amounts to racism even though I strongly disagree with a lot of it. It seems more like he's longing for a world with stronger cultural cohesion, which clearly implies less migration. I can see that many people share that idea, and I think it can be held without being inherently racist. It's a tension we see elsewhere too: for example, Israel's struggle to remain both a democracy and a distinctly Jewish state. You can call that racist, but it’s also about preserving a particular cultural identity build on a shared history.
If someone wants to build a community of like-minded people, there's always a line between inclusion and cohesion. That tension exists in countries just as it does in spaces like this one here, which carefully curates who participates. My reading of DHH's stance (eg: like his London Post essay) is that he’s applying that idea of cultural integrity to nations. Again, I don't agree with it, but I also don’t think it's racist. It's simply a vision of society that clashes with larger scale migration.
I also think we can be critical of him and appreciative of his prior contributions. I like the duality of making him into two different people as a narrative (if imperfect) device to do that.
What you’re doing in your comment, David is not doing for himself. He is not accepting the criticisms and saying “oh, sorry I didn’t meant to be mean or hurtful and what I’m trying to say is nuanced, and I heard you and adjusted my language” he just keeps posting the same stuff. My read (as someone who was a top 50 rails contributor and worked along side of him for years) is that his doubling down is about control and intentional isolation.
For what it's worth, as a Jew, I do call Israel's policies of discrimination against Palestinians racist. They materially discriminate against a historically marginalized racial group - that's racism. (Also, stop using my people as a gotcha, thanks.)
Likewise, DHH vocally supports policies and political figures that would discriminate against historically marginalized people on the basis of race. If we can't agree that those policies are racist, I think we have a very different idea of what the word means - though given your comments on JeanHeyd Meneide, that wouldn't surprise me.
As to the rest: hooey. You consider it acceptable for individuals not to buy Framework's products, but telling other people that, if they share the values that motivate that decision, they might want to do the same thing, is crossing a line? Why?
For what it's worth, as a Jew, I do call Israel's policies of discrimination against Palestinians racist. They materially discriminate against a historically marginalized racial group - that's racism. (Also, stop using my people as a gotcha, thanks.)
First, this isn't a "gotcha". It's an example of a deeper tension that can't be resolved without curtailing someone's rights. Israel's policies may well include racist elements (I'm not denying that) but they also expose a conflict that exists in any state built around cultural or religious identity. You can see that as inherently racist, or you can see it as a sovereign right to define citizenship through shared religion or heritage.
Many forms of exclusion are not automatically racism. Most associations and communities have membership criteria that, by design, keep them bounded. A Christian congregation cannot and will not make a Muslim a member; a cultural fraternity may require shared ancestry or belief. It does become a real issue when those boundaries intersect with fundamental civil rights (which for sure is the situation in Israel, but again, that is not really what I was referring to). But the mere act of preserving cultural cohesion, at extremes through exclusion, isn't by itself racist.
More often the discussion is less about if segregation and exclusion is okay, but if the dominant group does it. An at this point pretty common occurrence in German are "FLINTA-only" events (restricted to women, lesbians, intersex, non-binary, trans and agender people) which are inherently exclusionary. But they also exist as an attempt of creating a safe space for marginalized groups in a form of affirmative action. Yet they are leveraging the same mechanism: excluding others, just with a different goal. There are many more examples.
As to the rest: hooey. You consider it acceptable for individuals not to buy Framework's products, but telling other people that, if they share the values that motivate that decision, they might want to do the same thing, is crossing a line? Why?
I’m not sure it crosses a line and frankly, I find those lines hard to define. My point is more about proportion. Framework's products aren't wholly defined by their association with Omarchy, and I struggle with the idea that a single controversy should dictate the entire relationship for anyone beyond the individual making that choice.
It's entirely fair to note that the company supports a project led by a controversial figure. But whether that outweighs everything else they stand for is ultimately a personal judgment.
Many forms of exclusion are not automatically racism.
Obviously. You're shadow-boxing a strawman for 60% of this comment.
You can see that as inherently racist, or you can see it as a sovereign right to define citizenship through shared religion or heritage.
I recognize no such right for states, doubly so for states that spent a good chunk of the 2nd milennium doing incredible violence across the entire world to enrich themselves.
It's entirely fair to note that the company supports a project led by a controversial figure. But whether that outweighs everything else they stand for is ultimately a personal judgment.
Of course. Your personal judgment demonstrates your personal character. I reserve the right to judge your character based on whether or not you make similar personal judgments to me, when those judgments are based in my values. It seems like you're reacting to a very extreme position here - that people shouldn't be allowed to buy from Framework - when I have not seen that view expressed anywhere. Have you? Or are you just mad that people are criticizing things you find uncomfortably close to views you hold?
It seems like you're reacting to a very extreme position here - that people shouldn't be allowed to buy from Framework
I am not, and if you took that impression then let me clarify it: I don't know if people are taking that view and it's not what I was talking about.
Or are you just mad that people are criticizing things you find uncomfortably close to views you hold?
I'm not mad, and DHH does not hold a lot of views I share, definitely not politically. So if you intended this as an ad-hominen, it's misdirected.
That's not what an ad hominem argument is. Nonetheless, it was not presented in bad faith; given what you've said here, I do not understand what position you are arguing against. I think it isn't mine, so, I'm out.
but I also don’t think it's racist. It's simply a vision of society that clashes with larger scale migration.
I re-read the article and if this was the vision, then I personally find it to be conveyed in such a terrible way, that the vision is almost not visible at all. Now, it is his blog and his platform so there isn't much else here for me, but I hope that it is also quite easy to see that a lot of people would interpret the post as thinly veiled racism.
If there is such a lack of nuance in a post, I would expect some nuance later on, but some valid criticism seem to be dismissed with what feels to me as "haters gonna hate if you're successful".
I did find the post to be racist, but I agree with schneems here: we can be critical and appreciative of prior contributions.
Yes, but they are fallible people like everybody else and it's fine to call out their misbehavior. It turns into a problem when
do you know of anybody who is able to walk that line? because I only see two camps: those who call DHH out for his misbehavior, and those who don't for various reasons, optionally taking issue with the way it's done. I don't see anybody who demonstrates the amount of "nuance" you demand here and still manages to speak out in any way at all.
I only see two camps: those who call DHH out for his misbehavior, and those who don't for various reasons
I think part of it is that most people simply don't care enough to engage at that depth. They don’t follow every argument or they just don't really get into these fights. There are obviously people that actually agree with much of what he says but also won't talk. My point is: if you judge people just on if they call out DHH, you miss the fact that many who don't might still not agree with him.
I would argue that a lot of people are walking this line just fine. They can like some of the things DHH is doing, and completely disagree with others and they can hold those opinions in their head just fine. I consider myself to walk that line. I have my worldview that greatly differs of DHH's (one that I have written about plenty of times in my blog) and I disagree with DHH's view of a lot of things from software engineering as well, but that does not mean that I cannot also find him an interesting person with some very valid opinions and I don't feel the need of publicly taking sides. In general it takes quite a lot for me to publicly call something out.
I do tend to judge people based on what they choose to put energy in rather than what they say they believe, for the same reason that I believe that actions speak louder than words.
My point isn't that it's impossible to hold nuanced beliefs but that I rarely see people put their full weight behind them in an equally nuanced (or balanced) way, or that they choose to disengage entirely which can't be the goal either. Case in point: I can see that you may hold nuanced beliefs but your energy is spent on defending DHH for one thing rather than calling him out for another. And that kind of choice is what I disagree with strongly, even though I agree with you on quite a few points, such as Omarchy being fine on a technical level.
Measured against other high-profile tech figures, his misses aren’t uniquely egregious; he's the classic, opinionated public voice. The current wave of condemnation feels wrong to me.
Please read the post. I wrote it precisely for people like you, you are its intended audience. He has moved beyond bad arguments or clumsy framing, he has moved beyond the benefit of the doubt. He is weaponizing your benefit of the doubt, what you are doing right here, and using it against people like me.
I dislike doing this on literally the top voted front page post but what does this have to do with technology? This is purely a semi political/culture piece whose target happens to be a developer.
Lobsters is focused pretty narrowly on computing; tags like art don't imply every piece of art is on-topic. Some rules of thumb for great stories to submit: Will this improve the reader's next program? Will it deepen their understanding of their last program? Will it be more interesting in five or ten years?
What about this is computing, or helps improve programs? This has nothing to even do with ruby. I feel like if your only applicable tags to a story are “culture” and “person” it probably is quite off-topic. We should keep posts like this to Reddit or the orange site
And before you tell me to use tags to filter, there have been plenty of “person” and “culture” stories I love reading. I shouldn’t have to miss out on those.
This discussion has been had here many times, but remember that the tech you want to focus on so much has people around using it and contributing to it, and the presence of other people in the equation necessarily means there will be a clash of world views and politics.
All tech is political. You can be a great programmer on paper, but your programs can only be of great benefit to society if you listen to your users. So you have to have at least some understanding of world view and politics to achieve excellence as a programmer.
That's why I think stories like this are useful.
Are dhh and _why and David Hamburger Helper the same person? Pretty confusing.
dhh and David Hamburger Helper are the same person, I believe. I think _why (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_the_lucky_stiff) is a different person.
I think this tallies with my thinking: DHH's rabid marketing ("omakase nonsense") was convenient for the Ruby community for a very long time. Everybody there benefitted from it.
Don’t know why I’m bothering to write this, but if you’re here you received your invite from someone, so there’s clearly a higher barrier to your comment being visible to others and others must have at least thought positively of you to invite you here, so:
This isn’t a “woke stasi”, whatever the hell that means. People aren’t trying to give visibility to your comment, because you’re not contributing; you’re being a dick, and actively making this site worse. Stop.
The word “trans” is mentioned in the article because the author is trans. These points affect the author personally, so it is relevant to her. There is no “flawed narrative”, because trans people exist, and no amount of arguing is going to change that, all it’s going to lead to is making their existence miserable (and everyone else’s around them! Stop!)
There is another article linked here with similar points where the issue is ADHD instead. The points are equally valid.
You might think that's a nice argument. Except you're telling me that I should just ignore the bully announcing to come after me? After they showed clear power to destroy my community ? surely they will go away if I just ignore them - we tried that in the past, didn't work well.
Let me ask you: Why are you so irritated by the word trans in here ? Could it be that this submission is a valid argument, which is why you can't just go on and ignore this post ?