Er, good luck to her I guess. She's setting a high bar for herself by assuming she can create a new approach to logic that is inherently feminist. I suppose I can kind of see the possibility?.....But the notion is so entirely vague that it's a little hard to see as more than a political statement.
I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that something can be and not be without being a contradiction, that is a system where the following statement is not explosive: (p && ¬p) == 1.
...Well, good luck on making that work in a practical sense.
Apparently that is a thing, one of several alternate logic systems developed over the centuries (which have no link to feminism) called paraconsistent logic. And it's already in use by computer scientists. I guess they weren't using it in a "feminist" way though, like she would. It seems to be mainly used for coding AI heuristic algorithms, where uncertainty is a big issue, so I can't see how a whole language built around it would be good for entry-level coders or day-to-day programming tasks. In any case, you could just code an abstract data type in any object-oriented language to be one of these data types, so you don't need a whole new language to take advantage of the add expressiveness for niche domains.
Her main idea however is to create a new language which is neither procedural, functional, imperative, or object oriented - good luck with THAT part.
In any case, I don't even see this as feminism-related. This fuzzy-thinking is entirely the fault of postmodern studies, but "postmodern X" doesn't sell, so you label it "feminist X" and you have a whole lot of moral weight behind you, and you can accuse anyone who objects as an agent of the patriarchy. Postmodernism is like a cult.
Author
Topic: Postmodernism vs Bay12 - Deathmatch 2014. aka feminist programming languages (Read 29222 times)