An interesting and polemic article

Understanding how words fit together to form sentences enriches the life of the mind.
Grammar is not a science. It is a body of agreements, like law or the rules of chess, about the meaning of words and the forms they take when combined. Writers broadly adhere to these conventions to understand each other better. If those agreements did not exist, there would necessarily be others in their place.
Language of course evolves. Over the very long term, Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification to explain the origin of species is fascinatingly apt in explaining also the origin of languages. Even in a short time, a convention about language may become so disregarded that it no longer applies. But in general, it’s a good thing if the pace of change is not so rapid that the literature of previous generations becomes obscure. Modern readers are fortunate in being able easily to make sense of Shakespeare, because our conventions have enough in common with his.
Understanding grammar is not about rote learning. Grammar is a tool that, once grasped, is empowering. It enables you to talk to any audience without being dismissed or patronised because of the way you write or speak.
Grammar gains a hearing for your ideas, allowing them to be judged on their merits. When you learn a foreign language, you can’t do it merely by memorising a list of words. You need to know how the words combine and how their relation to each other alters their form. It’s no different with your native tongue.
My philosophy of grammar is far from original. As Kingsley Amis once put it, in a review of a book on English usage: “This book is founded on a principle taken for granted by most writers and readers since time immemorial: that there is a right way of using words and constructing sentences and plenty of wrong ways.”