As someone that has very little involvement in the JS community, Crockford definitely comes off as abrasive in that issue. He could've just as easily said "scope confusion is an issue in JS, I don't see a reason to implement this" instead of calling someone's decision stupid. Is it bad he's abrasive? Not particularly, any undergrad worth their salt would've come across a professor who's abrasive in college. Abrasiveness is a personality artifact, and I'm not belittling him for that matter, just pointing out how someone can interpret his personality.
I've read some of his stuff, watched a presentation. He is direct and opinionated. It's part of his charm. Sometimes it's quite funny.
I've met many people who are "dicks without knowing it". Sometimes it's because they are that far up their own arse. Sometimes it's raw abrasion. It's common in the private healthcare industry.
Seems like throwing of the dummy out the pram. I'd prefer Crockford's direct approach to sugar-coat. It's how I like to work.
That and if someone's focus is on inclusion, perhaps it's an ill-thought marketing campaign where the result is exclusion.
> But that seems to still assume this "abrasiveness" is a bad thing.
The commenter literally says "it's important to note that Douglas Crockford can definitely be abrasive [1]. The issue at hand is that whether this abrasiveness is a bad thing..."
The consequences of one's own interpretation, if deleterious, are one's own loss. When they include the disinvitation of a brilliant and deeply knowledgeable speaker from a conference in his field, they become everyone's loss.
