generally there is one condition that decides whether JavaScript is the best choice . JS is the best choice if and only if that's the only possible option.
Not with vague criteria like 'popular', which can mean whatever you feel best suits your interests. I can, however, point out numerous languages with far fewer problems with backward compatibility than Python. For fun, I'll use only languages that you're likely to despise: VBA, PHP, JavaScript, and Perl (even the infamous Perl 6 is slated to have a compatibility mode for Perl 5 code), just to name a few.
In each of those examples, you'll find that most, if not all, untouched 10-year-old code works in the latest releases. (Yes, even PHP, which has been known to give users a decade or more to deal with depreciated features.)
Hands down it can do everything perl can do - while providing clear, readable code that is consistent from one developer to the next.
My experience is different. Dramatically different, actually. I've seen very few examples of readable python, and very little consistency between developers.
I suppose you're referring to the controversial the white space rules? The killer-feature that can be replicated for any sensible language with a keystroke in virtually every editor? Or, if you prefer: The reason that anonymous functions in Python are crippled?
I'd even go as far as to say it's white space rules make Python code significantly more difficult to read, as you can't clearly see where blocks begin and end, particularly when the indentation level changes by more than one, which happens quite frequently.
I debugged my last hanging curly brace/missing semicolon long ago.
I'll bet it was easier than hunting down the invisible bugs from mixed tabs/spaces or introduced by your editor mangling indentation while moving bits of code around. You know, problems you're actually likely to encounter when using Python, unlike your examples.
Within 2.x, you'll find many problems with backward compatibility. 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 -- 2.6 got a lot of bad press, but it did break less stuff than the previous versions, so I'm excluding it for fairness.
I'm not sure what you're complaining about; no one is forcing you to upgrade versions if you don't want/need to, right?
How long will users be able to maintain an installation of, for example, 2.4 if their software depends on it? Will there even be anyone around who remembers that requirement in 5 or 10 years time? What about security issues? 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 all have notable security issues.
Software should have a life-span longer than a midge-fly.
I'll use Python when it's stable. As it stands now, 'Python' isn't so much a language as it is a collection of similar, but incompatible, variations on a theme. If they're going to break it every other version, the least they could is fix some of the fundamental problems with the language.
It's widely accepted that women are more comfortable learning and engaging in environments where they're not underrepresented. There are even some anecdotal examples of that in the comments here. By offering opportunities like this exclusively to women, you eliminate a lot of potential barriers that men, in general, don't face.
Your mistake is believing that if men and women are equal, then they face identical obstacles. That's, very obviously, not the case.
Consider for a moment how many programmers learn: They don't ask for permission, they don't apply for a government permit, many don't even take a class. They pick up a book or visit a website and start banging their heads against the wall. It's inherently egalitarian, and your standing in the community has every reason to be based on a meritocracy (you're just a series of characters, so nobody knows what you are unless you advertise)
A simple difference between your first and second statements: One is about individuals, the other is about individuals in groups. Programming is anything but egalitarian when you introduce social dynamics. Not everyone hides in their basement, you know. Sooner or later, you have to leave mom's cellar to attend work or school, or you may want to share what you're doing/learning with friends and family. Your belief that programming is "inherently" egalitarian depends on the ability for a woman to maintain anonymity. I don't really need to point out the absurdity of that!
Women shouldn't be forced to hide their gender to get equal treatment. In online communities, development communities in particular, the default assumption is that you're a man. Consequently, men don't need to "advertise" their gender nor make special efforts to conceal it (how could they?). In your pretend egalitarian world, you have women hiding behind a masculine or gender-neutral pseudonym and never engaging with anyone face-to-face!
See, you don't believe (or you don't believe that others believe) that women are just as capable as men. That's why you think they need to hide their gender -- that badge of inferiority -- from others. It's no wonder that you think programs like this are insulting to women; you think that it highlights a natural inferiority.
In short: Giving women special treatment like this helps ensure that women have equal opportunities. Women face different obstacles than men. If all programs like this were gender-neutral, they'd be (unintentionally) excluding women. It's not insulting, it's empowering.
I am suspicious of someone that talks about considering and consuming information for thought that didn't consider personality types.
Meyers-Briggs, DISC, and similar Jungian personality assessments are bunk. That doesn't mean they can't be useful, but it does mean you can't rely on them for their intended purpose. I'm deeply suspicious myself of people who put stock in such things. Particularly Meyers-Briggs, as it's the most widely criticized, even if that's for no other reason than its popularity.
I am also suspicious of someone that talks about considering and consuming information for thought that managed to miss anticipating this reaction.
But it was anticipated! That's why I didn't engage more directly in the first place.
Considering this, it seemed like an opportunity to duck out of a discussion in an attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic.
On that point, there's nothing to discuss. You'll note that I did offer him more specifics on his other points.
Additionally, your lack of substance in such discussions seems very practised.
Does it? I've found that people tend to "read in" to my posts more than what is actually there. I attributed this to the 'either-or' mentality you find here.
It is true, however, that I try to keep my personal views private as they're often irrelevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, most people here are more interested in someones personal beliefs than they are the content of their posts -- it makes it easier for them to dismiss what the other person has written. Rather than an "attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic" as you suggest, it's one of the few ways to actually achieve it!
If I offer anything, it will be rejected out-of-hand. If he comes to an answer on his own, through reading or reflection, he has no choice but to consider it.
You can't argue with ideologues on the internet. With luck, however, you can guide them.
I felt calling him a douchebag was worthwhile because he was making one of those "I called your argument a fallacy therefor I win" internet debate styles that's just the worst, especially when they're wrong about it being a fallacy. I hate those guys, and feel no remorse about insulting them.
I couldn't agree more. I ran across this the other day, you may find it interesting as well.
Sorry to derail the discussion, I was just having a bit of fun.
Like I said, take your time. Maybe do a bit of reading.
What I see is suggesting that they're inferior to men, and need to be separated into their own groups.
What a ridiculous notion. Groups are divided out for many reasons. In this case, the reason is clear: girls are underrepresented in computing. This in no way implies that girls are inferior to boys.
Now, I have a question for you: what do you think of making beauty pageants exclusive to boys?
I no know nothing about beauty pageants. I would assume, however, that they're already separated along those lines as the purpose is to be named the best representative of your gender, yes? This doesn't bother me in any way. Why do you think I should find that disturbing?
There's a serious flaw in your reasoning: I never claimed that sexism was the most credible answer. That was an inference on the part of the parent. I made no claim, and thus have no obligation to defend one.
The parent, on the other hand, did make a claim. I merely asked him to defend it.
The reality is that women have chosen NOT to be in this field... statistically. And as to why they have chosen not to do that... sexism is the least credible answer.
This should be fun.
Why do you believe sexism to be the least credible answer? Please include relevant citations.
Do you have an alternative explanation, which also explains the demographic shift we've seen since the early 1980's? Again, show your work.
Women have been making video games since the beginning! As I noted earlier, River Raid (of the the top games on the 2600) was written by Carol Shaw, a women. I also mentioned Dona Bailey, who co-developed the hit arcade classic Centipede.
But let's let your limited knowledge and experience dictate reality. That way, we don't have to let those icky girls in to our clubhouse.
Wrong. Women and men gravitate to certain career paths. Women choose NOT to sit for hours in front of computers learning to code.
Anecdote: When I introduced RPG Maker in an after-school program at the urging of one boy, more girls than boys asked if they could also participate. The girls also stuck with it longer than every boy, save the original. (The girls averaged about three weeks vs the boys four days, not counting the first boy, who spent 4 months on his creation.)
Children, regardless of gender, enjoy creative activities. Moving on...
The only female writers in games I can name off the top of my head
You'd be amazed at how many games were written and designed by women, even in the old days. Sticking with just well-known titles: River Raid (Carol Shaw), Centipede (Dona Bailey, later driven from the industry by male co-workers), Archon (Anne Westfall), [bunch of Sierra games] (Jane Jensen), Laser Surgeon [okay, not as well known, but the name you'll recognize] (Brenda Laurel), Plundered Hearts, Zork Zero (Amy Briggs), I could go on all day, it seems.
That doesn't even begin to touch on the countless influential women in game design, who bring talents aside from programming to the table like Lucy Bradshaw, Robin Hunicke (who you dismissed without naming earlier), Brenda Brathwaite, Alyssa Finley, Linda Currie... like the earlier list, this just doesn't end.
The point of all this? That you're not aware of many famous women in games does not mean that there aren't many famous women in games.
Do you know what keeps women out of game development? Attitudes like yours, as illustrated by the aforementioned Dona Bailey.
And before you give me some presto intellectual argument about how they're just conditioned to not want to do these things... Wrong. Women and men gravitate to certain career paths. Women choose NOT to sit for hours in front of computers learning to code.
Back in the early 80's something like 40% of CS graduates were women. Why do you think they seem to have collectively chosen to avoid it and related fields? It clearly wasn't a problem earlier, after all.
I think that you know why. You just don't like the answer.
Their product was only "better" because their competitors at the time only had crap products.
That's kind of how it works in general. Some products are superior to other, inferior, products.
Why not just say "they wouldn't have had a product that was 'better' than the competition if the competition had a superior product". So silly...
The global sales of smartphones during that time was about 1/20th of what they are now. It's easy to be the biggest fish when the pond is small.
Good effort. Now, ask yourself: 'why did the market grow?' Because the smartphone market expanded in to the consumer space. Companies started to offer their inferior products (read: ill-suited to the enterprise) with features attractive to consumers. BlackBerry faltered in the consumer market because consumers aren't interested in the features that enterprise users demanded. As the market grew, it was no surprise to see their market-share fall -- they weren't competing in the same space. (Ignoring their less-than-successful entries in to the consumer market, that is.)
Anyhow, now that the smartphone hype as all died down, I don't see any reason that BlackBerry couldn't make a strong come-back, at least in the enterprise. Someone else linked to this review which indicates that BB can still build a workhorse for the serious business user. (I'll even offer the same quote: " It was unexpectedly the best smartphone we've ever used from the perspective of taking care of business.")
Time will tell, but they've clearly started to play to their strengths. The new BlackBerry Classic has caught my eye. My battered old 8820 never let me down. A 2014 version of that just might cure my mobile woes. I doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way.
you think Javascript and PHP are good well designed languages with no flaws.
No where will you find a post where I make that claim. Quite the opposite, in fact, as you'll find many of my posts where I criticize various aspects of JS as well as acknowledge specific issues with PHP. I've spoken in defense of both, sure, but only when the criticisms being offered were objectively incorrect. See, your problem is that you mistake your uninformed and subjective opinions for objective fact.
This isn't a my first website discussion, there's no room for your pre-Comp. Sci. 101 understanding of computing here
You'll note that this is NOT a discussion about computing, but about philosophy. You'll also note that bsdasym's comment is painfully incompetent. There is nothing even remotely defensible in, at least, the portion of his comment I quoted.
If you have something to ACTUALLY contribute, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead, defend bsdasym's comment. It will be interesting to watch you, with no background in philosophy, make a fool of yourself.
The whole argument in the link reduces to the so called "Chinese Room" [wikipedia.org], which itself is just a version of Solipsism that draws the boundary between biology and technology
Ouch, that was painful. I'm actually dumber, now, having read that. Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, stop discussing this topic.
Slashdot Mirror
generally there is one condition that decides whether JavaScript is the best choice . JS is the best choice if and only if that's the only possible option.
This opinion sounds uninformed.
To add to your point: You can also justify using the terms "clean" and "easy" to describe Forth.
How do we know that there are only 2 lameware apps? (Ignoring the fact that the article mentions 3 apps.)
That's "2" that a part-time columnist on a deadline found without much effort. I suspect that the actual number is significantly higher...
Not with vague criteria like 'popular', which can mean whatever you feel best suits your interests. I can, however, point out numerous languages with far fewer problems with backward compatibility than Python. For fun, I'll use only languages that you're likely to despise: VBA, PHP, JavaScript, and Perl (even the infamous Perl 6 is slated to have a compatibility mode for Perl 5 code), just to name a few.
In each of those examples, you'll find that most, if not all, untouched 10-year-old code works in the latest releases. (Yes, even PHP, which has been known to give users a decade or more to deal with depreciated features.)
Hands down it can do everything perl can do - while providing clear, readable code that is consistent from one developer to the next.
My experience is different. Dramatically different, actually. I've seen very few examples of readable python, and very little consistency between developers.
I suppose you're referring to the controversial the white space rules? The killer-feature that can be replicated for any sensible language with a keystroke in virtually every editor? Or, if you prefer: The reason that anonymous functions in Python are crippled?
I'd even go as far as to say it's white space rules make Python code significantly more difficult to read, as you can't clearly see where blocks begin and end, particularly when the indentation level changes by more than one, which happens quite frequently.
I debugged my last hanging curly brace/missing semicolon long ago.
I'll bet it was easier than hunting down the invisible bugs from mixed tabs/spaces or introduced by your editor mangling indentation while moving bits of code around. You know, problems you're actually likely to encounter when using Python, unlike your examples.
Within 2.x, you'll find many problems with backward compatibility. 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 -- 2.6 got a lot of bad press, but it did break less stuff than the previous versions, so I'm excluding it for fairness.
I'm not sure what you're complaining about; no one is forcing you to upgrade versions if you don't want/need to, right?
How long will users be able to maintain an installation of, for example, 2.4 if their software depends on it? Will there even be anyone around who remembers that requirement in 5 or 10 years time? What about security issues? 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 all have notable security issues.
Software should have a life-span longer than a midge-fly.
I'll use Python when it's stable. As it stands now, 'Python' isn't so much a language as it is a collection of similar, but incompatible, variations on a theme. If they're going to break it every other version, the least they could is fix some of the fundamental problems with the language.
It's widely accepted that women are more comfortable learning and engaging in environments where they're not underrepresented. There are even some anecdotal examples of that in the comments here. By offering opportunities like this exclusively to women, you eliminate a lot of potential barriers that men, in general, don't face.
Your mistake is believing that if men and women are equal, then they face identical obstacles. That's, very obviously, not the case.
Consider for a moment how many programmers learn: They don't ask for permission, they don't apply for a government permit, many don't even take a class. They pick up a book or visit a website and start banging their heads against the wall. It's inherently egalitarian, and your standing in the community has every reason to be based on a meritocracy (you're just a series of characters, so nobody knows what you are unless you advertise)
A simple difference between your first and second statements: One is about individuals, the other is about individuals in groups. Programming is anything but egalitarian when you introduce social dynamics. Not everyone hides in their basement, you know. Sooner or later, you have to leave mom's cellar to attend work or school, or you may want to share what you're doing/learning with friends and family. Your belief that programming is "inherently" egalitarian depends on the ability for a woman to maintain anonymity. I don't really need to point out the absurdity of that!
Women shouldn't be forced to hide their gender to get equal treatment. In online communities, development communities in particular, the default assumption is that you're a man. Consequently, men don't need to "advertise" their gender nor make special efforts to conceal it (how could they?). In your pretend egalitarian world, you have women hiding behind a masculine or gender-neutral pseudonym and never engaging with anyone face-to-face!
See, you don't believe (or you don't believe that others believe) that women are just as capable as men. That's why you think they need to hide their gender -- that badge of inferiority -- from others. It's no wonder that you think programs like this are insulting to women; you think that it highlights a natural inferiority.
In short: Giving women special treatment like this helps ensure that women have equal opportunities. Women face different obstacles than men. If all programs like this were gender-neutral, they'd be (unintentionally) excluding women. It's not insulting, it's empowering.
I am suspicious of someone that talks about considering and consuming information for thought that didn't consider personality types.
Meyers-Briggs, DISC, and similar Jungian personality assessments are bunk. That doesn't mean they can't be useful, but it does mean you can't rely on them for their intended purpose. I'm deeply suspicious myself of people who put stock in such things. Particularly Meyers-Briggs, as it's the most widely criticized, even if that's for no other reason than its popularity.
I am also suspicious of someone that talks about considering and consuming information for thought that managed to miss anticipating this reaction.
But it was anticipated! That's why I didn't engage more directly in the first place.
Considering this, it seemed like an opportunity to duck out of a discussion in an attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic.
On that point, there's nothing to discuss. You'll note that I did offer him more specifics on his other points.
Additionally, your lack of substance in such discussions seems very practised.
Does it? I've found that people tend to "read in" to my posts more than what is actually there. I attributed this to the 'either-or' mentality you find here.
It is true, however, that I try to keep my personal views private as they're often irrelevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, most people here are more interested in someones personal beliefs than they are the content of their posts -- it makes it easier for them to dismiss what the other person has written. Rather than an "attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic" as you suggest, it's one of the few ways to actually achieve it!
If I offer anything, it will be rejected out-of-hand. If he comes to an answer on his own, through reading or reflection, he has no choice but to consider it.
You can't argue with ideologues on the internet. With luck, however, you can guide them.
I felt calling him a douchebag was worthwhile because he was making one of those "I called your argument a fallacy therefor I win" internet debate styles that's just the worst, especially when they're wrong about it being a fallacy. I hate those guys, and feel no remorse about insulting them.
I couldn't agree more. I ran across this the other day, you may find it interesting as well.
Sorry to derail the discussion, I was just having a bit of fun.
I don't see a benefit.
Like I said, take your time. Maybe do a bit of reading.
What I see is suggesting that they're inferior to men, and need to be separated into their own groups.
What a ridiculous notion. Groups are divided out for many reasons. In this case, the reason is clear: girls are underrepresented in computing. This in no way implies that girls are inferior to boys.
Now, I have a question for you: what do you think of making beauty pageants exclusive to boys?
I no know nothing about beauty pageants. I would assume, however, that they're already separated along those lines as the purpose is to be named the best representative of your gender, yes? This doesn't bother me in any way. Why do you think I should find that disturbing?
*You can call this one if you want.
No, he can't. As you so colorfully put it: "That's not an 'ad hominem', douchebag"
I promise I won't even start a petty debate about the difference between an insult and an ad hominem.
Well, I guess it's on now ... My bad.
Consider, for a moment, why it would be beneficial for the participants to have this program be for girls alone.
Take your time.
Here you'll ask for citations. I'll need a quid pro quo on your part to bother.
If you can't support your claims, just say so.
BTW, why didn't you mention one of the most well-known women in gaming: Roberta Williams?
Because the parent already mentioned her.
There's a serious flaw in your reasoning: I never claimed that sexism was the most credible answer. That was an inference on the part of the parent. I made no claim, and thus have no obligation to defend one.
The parent, on the other hand, did make a claim. I merely asked him to defend it.
Now go and sin no more.
The reality is that women have chosen NOT to be in this field... statistically. And as to why they have chosen not to do that... sexism is the least credible answer.
This should be fun.
Why do you believe sexism to be the least credible answer? Please include relevant citations.
Do you have an alternative explanation, which also explains the demographic shift we've seen since the early 1980's? Again, show your work.
Women have been making video games since the beginning! As I noted earlier, River Raid (of the the top games on the 2600) was written by Carol Shaw, a women. I also mentioned Dona Bailey, who co-developed the hit arcade classic Centipede.
But let's let your limited knowledge and experience dictate reality. That way, we don't have to let those icky girls in to our clubhouse.
Wrong. Women and men gravitate to certain career paths. Women choose NOT to sit for hours in front of computers learning to code.
Anecdote: When I introduced RPG Maker in an after-school program at the urging of one boy, more girls than boys asked if they could also participate. The girls also stuck with it longer than every boy, save the original. (The girls averaged about three weeks vs the boys four days, not counting the first boy, who spent 4 months on his creation.)
Children, regardless of gender, enjoy creative activities. Moving on...
The only female writers in games I can name off the top of my head
You'd be amazed at how many games were written and designed by women, even in the old days. Sticking with just well-known titles: River Raid (Carol Shaw), Centipede (Dona Bailey, later driven from the industry by male co-workers), Archon (Anne Westfall), [bunch of Sierra games] (Jane Jensen), Laser Surgeon [okay, not as well known, but the name you'll recognize] (Brenda Laurel), Plundered Hearts, Zork Zero (Amy Briggs), I could go on all day, it seems.
That doesn't even begin to touch on the countless influential women in game design, who bring talents aside from programming to the table like Lucy Bradshaw, Robin Hunicke (who you dismissed without naming earlier), Brenda Brathwaite, Alyssa Finley, Linda Currie ... like the earlier list, this just doesn't end.
The point of all this? That you're not aware of many famous women in games does not mean that there aren't many famous women in games.
Do you know what keeps women out of game development? Attitudes like yours, as illustrated by the aforementioned Dona Bailey.
And before you give me some presto intellectual argument about how they're just conditioned to not want to do these things... Wrong. Women and men gravitate to certain career paths. Women choose NOT to sit for hours in front of computers learning to code.
Back in the early 80's something like 40% of CS graduates were women. Why do you think they seem to have collectively chosen to avoid it and related fields? It clearly wasn't a problem earlier, after all.
I think that you know why. You just don't like the answer.
Their product was only "better" because their competitors at the time only had crap products.
That's kind of how it works in general. Some products are superior to other, inferior, products.
Why not just say "they wouldn't have had a product that was 'better' than the competition if the competition had a superior product". So silly...
The global sales of smartphones during that time was about 1/20th of what they are now. It's easy to be the biggest fish when the pond is small.
Good effort. Now, ask yourself: 'why did the market grow?' Because the smartphone market expanded in to the consumer space. Companies started to offer their inferior products (read: ill-suited to the enterprise) with features attractive to consumers. BlackBerry faltered in the consumer market because consumers aren't interested in the features that enterprise users demanded. As the market grew, it was no surprise to see their market-share fall -- they weren't competing in the same space. (Ignoring their less-than-successful entries in to the consumer market, that is.)
Anyhow, now that the smartphone hype as all died down, I don't see any reason that BlackBerry couldn't make a strong come-back, at least in the enterprise. Someone else linked to this review which indicates that BB can still build a workhorse for the serious business user. (I'll even offer the same quote: " It was unexpectedly the best smartphone we've ever used from the perspective of taking care of business.")
Time will tell, but they've clearly started to play to their strengths. The new BlackBerry Classic has caught my eye. My battered old 8820 never let me down. A 2014 version of that just might cure my mobile woes. I doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way.
That's like saying a telegraph key is just as good as a keyboard. They are worlds apart.
you think Javascript and PHP are good well designed languages with no flaws.
No where will you find a post where I make that claim. Quite the opposite, in fact, as you'll find many of my posts where I criticize various aspects of JS as well as acknowledge specific issues with PHP. I've spoken in defense of both, sure, but only when the criticisms being offered were objectively incorrect. See, your problem is that you mistake your uninformed and subjective opinions for objective fact.
This isn't a my first website discussion, there's no room for your pre-Comp. Sci. 101 understanding of computing here
You'll note that this is NOT a discussion about computing, but about philosophy. You'll also note that bsdasym's comment is painfully incompetent. There is nothing even remotely defensible in, at least, the portion of his comment I quoted.
If you have something to ACTUALLY contribute, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead, defend bsdasym's comment. It will be interesting to watch you, with no background in philosophy, make a fool of yourself.
Yes, because getting boys interested in computer programming has been a major problem...
Oh, and encouraging girls must necessarily also mean discouraging boys.
Do you hear yourself?
The whole argument in the link reduces to the so called "Chinese Room" [wikipedia.org], which itself is just a version of Solipsism that draws the boundary between biology and technology
Ouch, that was painful. I'm actually dumber, now, having read that. Please, for the love of all that is good in this world, stop discussing this topic.