Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Agreed.

I see things like this, and wonder if people that promote things like this have any idea about why an appeal to emotion, like "You shouldn't hard define a variable type! That's unfair to the variable! What if it WANTS to be something else instead!?" is so whimsically weak in the face of an appeal to reason like "If Account_Record is NOT a properly formatted custom data type, and is NOT explicitly defined, then your code has to be many orders of magnitude more complex to deal with all the totally unworkable, yet implicitly possible types of data that could be in there, just to satisfy your silly notions. This tabulates to considerable wasted time debugging and writing code that could have been avoided with strong typing. Allowing Account_Record to hold something batshit, like a JPEG, instead of you know-- an ACTUAL ACCOUNT RECORD-- is irrational. Also, variables are not living, and are incapable of having feelings about what their data type declarations are."

This whole thing smacks of "It's so UNFAIR that reality is the way it is! I DEMAND THE WORLD RECONFORM TO MY VIEWS!"

Naturally, such a thing totally fails at the "All inclusive" goal it ascribes to attain, because it does this by removing the old methodology. It cannot be all inclusive, if it excludes by its nature. Oh-- but that's right, she's redefining logic too.

(rolls eyes)

[Jelle]

(can't believe I'm saying this)

I don't know I think you guys are being a bit to dismissive here, it is worth it to at least consider this thing rationally before jumping to call it nonsense. Like most sensible persons I don't think sexism should be substituted with more sexism so I'm all for booing extremist feminism. But sexism or no you cannot deny there are significant differences in the way of thinking between the sexes, so if it is possible this difference has crept into the fundaments of logic and thus programming it's worth investigating at least.

Note that I still think it's silly of course.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'm sure this will work out and is not in any way for publicity/hate-popularity.

[Remuthra]

Reports also indicate top-secret feminist astronauts are beginning the construction of an inherently feminist death star. Proponents mock the Obama Administration's refusal to build an American counterpart.

[wierd]

No silly, the Feminazis are on the MOON, working with the ALIENS.

[Remuthra]

Why do you think the USSF needs a death star?

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting her word usage in the way she intended, but it seems like her definition of existing programming languages as masculine is based on their structure in the sense that some things are objects and other subjects, and there are stratified relationships in the data and/or code so that one thing is higher or lower than another.

That's not specifically masculine. And the alternative, of complex interdependencies, is not specifically feminine. To claim such, you'd be saying that when women socially stratify themselves to claim and distribute social influence, they're doing something masculine rather than feminine. But that's something both men and women do, in male- or female- dominated social systems. Similarly, a male-dominated monarchy can be complex enough to create interdependencies and various amounts of influence in different spheres, which encourage people to help each other to share resources, which you would expect to see in a female-dominated monarchy. I don't think the argument holds much water.

It would be interesting to see if her research comes up with something cool. But I feel like it'll be because her different viewpoint led to an unexpected development scheme, not that the resulting language would in any way support or detract from her sociological viewpoint.

TL;DR: She cray cray but maybe make some good code anyway?

EDIT: This comment didn't get enough love when it was posted, but it's wonderful:

These guys are gonna love my white supremacist system of musical notation.

[tahujdt]

I remember reading about C+= on the WTF thread. It seems like standard feminist blather (natural superiority of 0 over 1 because 1 is phallic) towards the beginning, but as you read on it slowly transforms into either Poebait or TSJWese. "Something something reject booleans. No can mean no, while yes can mean no as well. Stop raping women."

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Perhaps the Masculine Agenda managed to subvert Feminism over the years by taking on their methods: insinuation, deception, and enforced shame. At some point the actual feminists get bored and stop posting, and it's just a bunch of pimply dudes making fun of each other's female forum accounts in increasingly-subtle ways.

[tahujdt]

Unless you are a feminist who wants to discredit those false feminists. FEMINCEPTION!

[LeoLeonardoIII]

But is that discrediting feminist actually a man in disguise?! Trying to give the illusion of conflict where there is none, taking the opportunity to frame the discussion and prevent it from going anywhere?! The interrobang is an inherently evil type of punctuation because it makes people think about banging.

[tahujdt]

It hadn't until you mentioned it. O.O

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Feminism is meta-fighting feminism?

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Every day I try to make someone think about banging who would not already be thinking abou tit.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Every day I try to make someone think about banging who would not already be thinking abou tit.

Subversion detected. Cleansing.