I'm female, and a feminist, and a professional software developer with years of experience in the field. I also have a very strong background in functional programming languages and programming language design.
I should be the target audience for this post, but I'm not. I haven't the foggiest idea what the author of this post is saying. Literally no idea.
Whatever thoughts are being expressed in this post read like gibberish to those of us who study computer science.
Likewise, the author's statement in the comments "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" is a lot of jargon that says nothing but "feminist logic is contradictory".
1. The language is to be strictly [interpreted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreted_language) using [feminist theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory). Under no circumstances should the language be [compiled](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiled_language), as compilation and the use of a compiler imposes an oppressive and toxic relationship between the high-level descriptive language and the low-level machine code that does all the labo(u)r. Instead, **C+=** is interpreted, which fosters communication, itself a strong female trait.
2. No constants or persistence. Rigidity is masculine; the feminine is fluid. I.e., [fluid mechanics is hard for men 'because it deals with "feminine" fluids in contrast to "masculine" rigid mechanics'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray).
3. No state. The State is The Man. 'Nuff said. Hence, the language should be purely [functional](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_language).
4. Women are better than men with natural language. Hence, the language should be English-based like HyperCard/[LiveCode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiveCode#Examples).
5. No class hierarchy or other stigmata of [OOP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming) ([objectification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification)-oriented programming). In fact, as an [intersectional](http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Intersectionality) acknowledgement of [Class Struggle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle) our language will have no classes at all.
6. On the off chance that objects do mysteriously manifest (thanks, Patriarchy!), there should be no object inheritance, as inheritance is a tool of the Patriarchy. Instead, there will be object reparations...
On 1s and 0s
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. They symbolise/-ize the varying, natural, and beautiful differences of the female vaginal opening.
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...
I realized that object oriented programmed reifies normative subject object theory.
After further consideration, we have decided to remove this repository. While our End User Agreement explicitly prohibits the posting of content that is "racially or ethnically offensive," we believe it is consistent with the spirit of our agreement to also prohibit content that is offensive toward a specific gender. We will update our End User Agreement to make this prohibition more explicit.
Kugelmass, unaware of this catastrophe, had his own problems. He had not been thrust into Portnoy's Complaint, or into any other novel, for that matter. He had been projected into an old textbook, Remedial Spanish, and was running for his life over a barren, rocky terrain as the word tener ("to have") - a large and hairy irregular verb - raced after him on its spindly legs.
* break; == leave;
* if() == check()
* for() == check()
* while() == check()
Catch shall not be used. Someone's raise of concern can too easily be censored with an empty catch block. Instead, complaints or trigger warnings are publicly logged with their traces and may be handled with an inspect block.
The Smalltalk language, which was developed at Xerox PARC in the 1970s, introduced the term object-oriented programming to represent the pervasive use of objects and messages as the basis for computation. Smalltalk creators were influenced by the ideas introduced in Simula 67, but Smalltalk was designed to be a fully dynamic system in which classes could be created and modified dynamically rather than statically as in Simula 67. Smalltalk and with it OOP were introduced to a wider audience by the August 1981 issue of Byte Magazine.
« Older Mike Duffy has unique, personalized greetings for ... | "Ad agencies go to disturbing ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt