I defend Alexander against architects who have barely read his books but hold disdain for him.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Architects should understand Alexander's influence, programmers should critique it, and all should be suspicious of the monolithic white male architect trope.claim0.827
  Steenson's normative stance on how different groups should engage with Alexander.
• Technologists love Alexander and architects hate him.claim0.820
  Central assertion about the divergent receptions of Alexander's work; Steenson has been asking this for over a decade.
• For technologists, Alexander himself represents 'architecture': he is often the only architect they can name.claim0.803
  Observation about Alexander's outsized symbolic role in software communities.
• Why do technologists love Alexander and architects hate him?question0.802
  Central organizing question Steenson has posed for over a decade; reveals fundamental disagreement about meaning of 'architecture' itself.
• I warn programmers and UX designers not to worship Alexander, and to be critical about his universalizing theories.claim0.794
  Steenson's caution against uncritical adoption of Alexander's work in technology.
• As an architect, Alexander has become convinced that the I is certainly real in buildings and must necessarily play a fundamental role in architecture.claim0.792
  Alexander's personal scientific and professional conclusion stated in the Mid-Book Appendix.
• He challenges the assumptions of architectural practice on lines similar to those of John Ruskin and William Morris.claim0.792
  Claim comparing Alexander's critique to 19th-century reformers.
• The work of Alexander was more radical than Arts and Crafts architects generally admitted.claim0.788
  Assertion attributed to John Hanson about the radical nature of Alexander's approach.