I would say the paper has overloaded the word “feminism” to the point of no longer being useful. We already have a perfectly good word for what the paper is actually talking about: inclusivity....
I would say the paper has overloaded the word “feminism” to the point of no longer being useful. We already have a perfectly good word for what the paper is actually talking about: inclusivity.
Which is not to say the paper doesn’t have good points, but it’s really struggling to coerce the terminology.
It is difficult to know what someone mean by "feminism" because feminism is incredibly broad. It's a similar situation to the word "socialism". When employing these terms it is useful to present a...
It is difficult to know what someone mean by "feminism" because feminism is incredibly broad. It's a similar situation to the word "socialism". When employing these terms it is useful to present a brief explanation on how they should be interpreted in the context of the article. I don't believe this article does that. Without it each reader will just default to their own personal bias.
In any case, this post gives me the impression of something that is meant for a very specific context which is not available to me. I don't think this was meant for the general public. Maybe it's not a bad article it's just not really an article.
Charitably, I might just assume that is a piece of a conversation I didn't follow from the beginning.
This bit here...is just wrong: Emphasis mine. I can make a reasonable argument about why AWK and SQL are programming languages....but HTML is not executable any more than UML is. That's as far as...
This bit here...is just wrong:
[...] it can be argued they are not a programming language, such as UML, AWK or SQL. UML is not executable, so could easily be disregarded as a programming language, but is not. HTML, which is executable however, is not seen as a programming language in regular PL discourse.
Emphasis mine. I can make a reasonable argument about why AWK and SQL are programming languages....but HTML is not executable any more than UML is.
That's as far as I got for now (out of time) but that line set me off so bad I can't think rationally about the paper, and I think it's better if I step back and try to continue with a clearer head.
Edit: Ok, finished after that visceral reaction cooled off. Here's the thing.... I feel like this paper would have been much more useful if they had done at least one of the following things:
Provided specific examples about non-inclusive design choices in programming languages.
Provided a simplified psuedo-code example of what a more inclusive language might look like.
As it stands...it kind of feels a shallow paper with hollow arguments. Kind of like accusing math proofs about being privileged. There's only so far you can map societal problems into other domains, so in this case, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
I'm still reading the paper itself but I found this preface and the discussion around it on lobsters to be fascinating. My initial impression of the title was this piece would be about a gender...
I'm still reading the paper itself but I found this preface and the discussion around it on lobsters to be fascinating. My initial impression of the title was this piece would be about a gender imbalance in some PL maintainer councils, however defining feminism as an examination and force of change in systems of power made me reflect on why gender imbalances exist and how feminism isn't just about gender.
For tildes readers who felt skeptical or guarded when you read the title: Can you reflect on why you had that reaction? Does feminism have a negative connotation in your mind? Why is that? Some of the commenters on lobsters exhibited this reaction, and I'd love to hear a reflection on it in real time. When I was younger I think I would have had a negative first impression of the title, I'm not sure when that changed for me, but I'm glad I no longer think or feel that way.
I would say the paper has overloaded the word “feminism” to the point of no longer being useful. We already have a perfectly good word for what the paper is actually talking about: inclusivity.
Which is not to say the paper doesn’t have good points, but it’s really struggling to coerce the terminology.
It is difficult to know what someone mean by "feminism" because feminism is incredibly broad. It's a similar situation to the word "socialism". When employing these terms it is useful to present a brief explanation on how they should be interpreted in the context of the article. I don't believe this article does that. Without it each reader will just default to their own personal bias.
In any case, this post gives me the impression of something that is meant for a very specific context which is not available to me. I don't think this was meant for the general public. Maybe it's not a bad article it's just not really an article.
Charitably, I might just assume that is a piece of a conversation I didn't follow from the beginning.
This bit here...is just wrong:
Emphasis mine. I can make a reasonable argument about why AWK and SQL are programming languages....but HTML is not executable any more than UML is.
That's as far as I got for now (out of time) but that line set me off so bad I can't think rationally about the paper, and I think it's better if I step back and try to continue with a clearer head.
Edit: Ok, finished after that visceral reaction cooled off. Here's the thing.... I feel like this paper would have been much more useful if they had done at least one of the following things:
As it stands...it kind of feels a shallow paper with hollow arguments. Kind of like accusing math proofs about being privileged. There's only so far you can map societal problems into other domains, so in this case, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
This is not how the non-fascists will win the culture wars.
I'm still reading the paper itself but I found this preface and the discussion around it on lobsters to be fascinating. My initial impression of the title was this piece would be about a gender imbalance in some PL maintainer councils, however defining feminism as an examination and force of change in systems of power made me reflect on why gender imbalances exist and how feminism isn't just about gender.
For tildes readers who felt skeptical or guarded when you read the title: Can you reflect on why you had that reaction? Does feminism have a negative connotation in your mind? Why is that? Some of the commenters on lobsters exhibited this reaction, and I'd love to hear a reflection on it in real time. When I was younger I think I would have had a negative first impression of the title, I'm not sure when that changed for me, but I'm glad I no longer think or feel that way.