Post: #1

Quote:A project of the Feminist Software Foundation. Feminist software is a cornerstone of any modern free society. We build this foundation.
Now hosted on BitBucket, as GitHub proves to be too misogynistic to support a feminist programming language.

https://bitbucket.org/FeministSoftwareFo...s-equality

If you couldn't already tell, it's a massive parody mocking feminists. And it's brilliant.

It all started because of this ridiculous article: http://www.hastac.org/blogs/ari-schlesin...-languages

Post: #2

That article in which the article came from was easily the biggest pile of crap I've read in a while. Strip away the fancy words and elitist speak, there is nothing there. She wrote nothing at all. I felt stupid after reading it because I don't do programming but I quickly realized neither does she, hense the reason she left out any specifics and just kept on abstracts that mean nothing.

Post: #3

Post: #4

Women can't even program a remote control. How are they going to come up with a whole software language?

Post: #5

Good. Very good, actually. It warms my heart to see these smart coder geeks trolling feminism.

Believe me, these are the guys you want to have on your side.

Post: #6

A comment from the second link:

Quote:What is a feminist logic is a question I’ve spent the past six months thinking about and researching. There are not a lot of women in philosophy, and there are definitely not a lot of feminist philosophers, so I don’t have a good answer for this question. There is great scholarship talking about weather a feminist logic can build off of formal logic or if it has to reject the laws of identity and create something entirely new. There are solid arguments for both camps, personally I’m swayed by the constructive theories that would build onto formal logic through a feminist lens. There exist logics that handle contradiction as part of the system, namely paraconsistent logic.

This, right here, should be set in stone. Never before has a woman so perfectly summarized how absolutely insane and delusional the female brain is. God bless her for saying this. If any man would have said the above quote, there'd be calls for his castration and death.

Post: #7

Are we certain that the original article wasn't a subtle troll job itself?

Post: #8

The site you've linked to is a mirror of the original satirical language. Evidently the programmers who made the C+= used their real accounts and started getting doxxed by feminists. Plenty of tech's have lost their jobs that way already, think donglegate.

Post: #9

The blogger Phil Greenspun wrote that:

Quote:Among existing technologies, my personal choice for a feminist programming language would be SQL. The woman expresses her demands for data with five lines of code; a team of 100 men writes 2 million lines of C that must consider all possible ways of satisfying the the query and ultimately supply the answer.

Post: #10

That first link explaining the programming language is full of gold:

Quote:The traditional binary foundation of 1s and 0s is deeply problematic: 1 is inherently phallic and thus misogynistic. Also, some 1s are 0s, and some 0s are 1s. It is not fair to give them immutable labels. Instead, we have 0s and Os as our fundamental binary logic gates.

Quote:0 is to take the conventional value of 0.
O is 50% of the time 0, and 50% of the time 1. The determination of this depends on how the underlying logic feels at the moment.

Quote:Anything that can be construed as misogynist will be corrected, thus:
private == privileged
printf(); == yell();
class Foo{}; == social_construct Foo{};

Quote:There is to be no encapsulation: don't tell me to protect my members, tell other functions not to access them!

Quote:Line terminators should not be used. Programmers get to select their own 'line decorator' to use in lieu of a line terminator.

Quote:There can be no bugs in this language. To suggest otherwise is offensive.
There are no bugs, only snowflakes.

Post: #11

Quote:There is to be no debugging. We need to do away with functional-centric, bugphobic attitudes in programming. You need to accept the program the way it is.

Excellent parody! Hats off to these guys!

Post: #12

(12-14-2013 03:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:There is to be no debugging. We need to do away with functional-centric, bugphobic attitudes in programming. You need to accept the program the way it is.

Excellent parody! Hats off to these guys!

So is this language actually real? My mind boggles at how such code could actually do... well, anything really.

Post: #13

Of course it's not real. They just took the author of the ridiculous drivel about lack of feminism (second article linked in the first post) in programming at her word, and naturally the results were hilarious.

Post: #14

(12-13-2013 08:03 PM)kosko Wrote:  That article in which the article came from was easily the biggest pile of crap I've read in a while. Strip away the fancy words and elitist speak, there is nothing there. She wrote nothing at all. I felt stupid after reading it because I don't do programming but I quickly realized neither does she, hense the reason she left out any specifics and just kept on abstracts that mean nothing.

Yes---this woman obviously isn't much of a programmer. She writes:

Quote:We, as programmers, despite claiming that our field is "objective" have very subjective values that are entrenched in our discourse of programming language, particularly when it comes to the impossible-to-define term of "elegance".

What she obviously doesn't know is that the term "elegant" is usually reserved for code which carries out the assigned task in an extremely resource-efficient manner, with fewest lines of code, or with the simplest algorithm or design (and more often, some combination of all of the above). Far from being some mystical arcana of the programming realm, "elegance" is well-defined and entirely accessible---it is, in fact, fairly simple to understand, even if not easy to achieve.

For the record, I don't consider myself a proper programmer but I do write a lot of (high-level) code for my job. The fact that she doesn't get this is just more evidence that she is a poseur.

Post: #15

Guys, it's a parody.

Goddamn. 4chan trolls hard. Respect.

Post: #16

(12-14-2013 08:23 AM)randomForest Wrote:  

(12-13-2013 08:03 PM)kosko Wrote:  That article in which the article came from was easily the biggest pile of crap I've read in a while. Strip away the fancy words and elitist speak, there is nothing there. She wrote nothing at all. I felt stupid after reading it because I don't do programming but I quickly realized neither does she, hense the reason she left out any specifics and just kept on abstracts that mean nothing.

Yes---this woman obviously isn't much of a programmer. She writes:

Quote:We, as programmers, despite claiming that our field is "objective" have very subjective values that are entrenched in our discourse of programming language, particularly when it comes to the impossible-to-define term of "elegance".

What she obviously doesn't know is that the term "elegant" is usually reserved for code which carries out the assigned task in an extremely resource-efficient manner, with fewest lines of code, or with the simplest algorithm or design (and more often, some combination of all of the above). Far from being some mystical arcana of the programming realm, "elegance" is well-defined and entirely accessible---it is, in fact, fairly simple to understand, even if not easy to achieve.

For the record, I don't consider myself a proper programmer but I do write a lot of (high-level) code for my job. The fact that she doesn't get this is just more evidence that she is a poseur.

Out of all the women, few are actually bothered with the difficult aspects of engineering or creating working software in very difficult situations. Out of those few that do exist, they're very rare.