Culture The programmer who created Python isn't interested in mentoring white guys - The Cuckening of tech continues

source
Guido van Rossum is one of the world’s most influential programmers. Van Rossum is the author of the general-purpose programming language Python, which he started working on in 1989, and is now among the most popular languages in use. According to a survey of users on Stack Overflow, a popular question-and-answer site for programmers, Python is the fastest-growing major programming language, and the most used after JavaScript. Python is free and open source, meaning anybody can use the language and modify it to suit their specific needs.
In addition to creating the language, van Rossum has overseen its development. Programming languages evolve over time, with changes made to add features and fix bugs. Modifications to the official version, generally suggested by active users of the language, go through a complex approval process managed by a founder or core development team. Van Rossum served as the “benevolent dictator for life” of Python’s development until last year, when he stepped down from the post.

As Python grew in popularity, van Rossum noticed a problem.
In a rare interview with the programmer in October last year, which was recently published on YouTube, he was asked about the lack of diversity among the people working on open-source programming languages. He noted that it was an issue, and said that those who ignore it, because open-source projects are available for anyone to contribute, are not seeing the full picture.
“It’s not just joining a project that’s the problem, it’s staying in the project, which means you have to feel comfortable exchanging emails and code reviews… with people that you don’t know personally but you communicate frequently with online,” he said. Van Rossum thinks that these exchanges can be difficult for women because of unconscious bias and male-driven cultural norms within open-source communities.
“It’s not just about writing the code, but you have stand up for your code and defend your code, and there is a certain male attitude that is endemic in many projects where a woman would just not feel comfortable claiming that she is right,” he explained. “A guy who knows less than that woman might honestly believe [he is right], so they present a much more confident image.” In his experience, van Rossum sees incompetent men’s ideas gaining acceptance more often than merited because they are more forceful in how they present them.
Van Rossum believes that the different attitudes of women and men in programming communities is due to wider societal problems that we need to fix from the bottom up. “I’ve always felt that feminism was right and we need to change the whole society,” he said. In the meantime, he feels a responsibility to act in the places he has influence, like in the Python community.
He believes the key to making open-source communities more inclusive is establishing (and enforcing) codes of conduct and mentoring. Van Rossum says that he now mentors women and underrepresented minority programmers. “But white guys can forget it,” he said. “They are not the ones who need it most.” (In typical programmer speak, he calls mentoring a “completely distributed, democratic approach.”)
Rather, he thinks it’s important that men are educated about their biases. “[There are] some guys who are super defensive when you tell about this shit, but the majority of guys just don’t know any better,” he said. “The first time I heard the term unconscious bias was maybe five years ago and it was an eye opener.” It’s changed him, and he thinks it could change others.
You can watch the interview, with the writer Swapnil Bhartiya of the coding-focused website TFiR, below. The discussion about diversity occurs around the 23-minute mark:

 
It may not be apparent from what we see on A&H but there is a brand of feminism that says women need to take charge of and responsibility for their own lives. It just gets drowned out by the victimhood economy who sees it as a threat.
They're irrelevant because they've done fuckall to countermand their destructive sisters and as it turns out women apparently aren't willing to object en masse to being framed as the biggest victims of everything ever, or the "bad feminists" would have been driven from the field already with torches. So from where I'm sitting, good intentions mean jack and fucking shit. Either the "Good Feminists" are powerless and useless or they just don't fucking care. Which is it? Incompetence and inability? Laziness and malfeasance? I thought women ran the fucking world, here, ladies, don't let me down NOW!

EDIT: And honestly, I know how this is going to play out before it reaches its climax. There's going to be a redoubling of efforts to get men to step up and BE REAL MEN by fixing their colossal fuckup. "Haha we kind of destroyed relations between the sexes and stuff in a fit of pique but we didn't mean any harm, see, we just wanted to be empowered and make you let us run things. Don't you see how important it is that you pick up the pieces for us so we can totally not smash things again?"
 
Last edited:
They're irrelevant because they've done fuckall to countermand their destructive sisters and as it turns out women apparently aren't willing to object en masse to being framed as the biggest victims of everything ever, or the "bad feminists" would have been driven from the field already with torches. So from where I'm sitting, good intentions mean jack and fucking shit. Either the "Good Feminists" are powerless and useless or they just don't fucking care. Which is it? Incompetence and inability? Laziness and malfeasance? I thought women ran the fucking world, here, ladies, don't let me down NOW!
Dude, it's not reasonable to expect people to drop what they're doing and endlessly apologize for what manipulative extremists do. If you're talking about public figures/proponents, sure, but there are honestly a lot of women who call themselves "feminist" and it doesn't have this supercharged meaning to it. These tend to be the same kind of people who will listen to me explain that I'm not a feminist because I don't want to identify with those extremists and they say fair enough, but it's fine to have a live-and-let-live attitude. At the end of the day it's just a label, and saying everyone who doesn't reject it immediately is Fem-Hitler doesn't give any of them reason to be understanding to where you come from.
 
Dude, it's not reasonable to expect people to drop what they're doing and endlessly apologize for what manipulative extremists do. If you're talking about public figures/proponents, sure, but there are honestly a lot of women who call themselves "feminist" and it doesn't have this supercharged meaning to it. These tend to be the same kind of people who will listen to me explain that I'm not a feminist because I don't want to identify with those extremists and they say fair enough, but it's fine to have a live-and-let-live attitude. At the end of the day it's just a label, and saying everyone who doesn't reject it immediately is Fem-Hitler doesn't give any of them reason to be understanding to where you come from.
Right, so I can't hold the "OG" fems accountable for a splinter group that was gestating in their movement from almost day one. That "collective accountability" that feminists used as a cudgel to get laws enacted is completely off limits to me for reasons. You can imagine my fucking confusion when someone who just got through stabbing me says "NO NO NO DON'T PICK UP THAT KNIFE". Or what, bitch?
 
Right, so I can't hold the "OG" fems accountable for a splinter group that was gestating in their movement from almost day one. That "collective accountability" that feminists used as a cudgel to get laws enacted is completely off limits to me for reasons. You can imagine my fucking confusion when someone who just got through stabbing me says "NO NO NO DON'T PICK UP THAT KNIFE". Or what, bitch?
Collective accountability is bad when they do it, and it's bad when you do it.
 
@Sprig of Parsley calm down. Yes, you lowering to their level is just as bad. Of course it's more difficult to sift out who specifically is guilty of what but until someone steps up and does it, this cycle of bullshit doesn't end.
It apparently doesn't end the other way, either. I'm really not seeing a downside to not picking up that figurative knife. If we started drubbing them over the heads with that kind of horseshit they might actually feel compelled to clean fucking house for once in their lives, because nothing else really compelled them to do it before. Sit and wait to see what happens is a garbage option.

I mean, sure, call me as bad as them. If I get results I'll make sure to kind of note how wrong it is to apply collective guilt, but only after I see feminism's current cancerous incarnation thoroughly excised from law books and laughed out of every single establishment. We gave women unfettered voting rights (BETTER THAN OUR OWN) and they made SURE to reward us for it by fucking societal dynamics up so thoroughly that we're going to spend GENERATIONS undoing stupid bullshit in the courts IF WE CAN EVEN FIX IT AT ALL. More fool us for trusting them, Christ.
 
It apparently doesn't end the other way, either. I'm really not seeing a downside to not picking up that figurative knife. If we started drubbing them over the heads with that kind of horseshit they might actually feel compelled to clean fucking house for once in their lives, because nothing else really compelled them to do it before. Sit and wait to see what happens is a garbage option.

I mean, sure, call me as bad as them. If I get results I'll make sure to kind of note how wrong it is to apply collective guilt, but only after I see feminism's current cancerous incarnation thoroughly excised from law books and laughed out of every single establishment. We gave women unfettered voting rights (BETTER THAN OUR OWN) and they made SURE to reward us for it by fucking societal dynamics up so thoroughly that we're going to spend GENERATIONS undoing stupid bullshit in the courts IF WE CAN EVEN FIX IT AT ALL. More fool us for trusting them, Christ.

Tell us more about your hatred for femoids.
 
Gee I can't imagine why there are people who believe the extreme feminists when we've got people who over 100 years on still believe the right to vote is a special privilege women should feel grateful for.
Really? You're forgetting the counterpoint - EVERY SINGLE MAN HAS TO REGISTER WITH SELECTIVE SERVICE BEFORE HE CAN DO THAT. Women? They get it for nothing. Not a damned thing. They were offered suffrage on equal standing with men at the time and they rejected it, then proceeded to get what they wanted handed to them just so. And curiously it has NEVER occurred to women EVER to strike down the draft until it just so happened that a court case might result in them being subject to it.
So, I mean, as long as you're going to lie by omission here, why do you think male suffrage should be a privilege conferred via Selective Service and not an actual right?
 
Really? You're forgetting the counterpoint - EVERY SINGLE MAN HAS TO REGISTER WITH SELECTIVE SERVICE BEFORE HE CAN DO THAT. Women? They get it for nothing. Not a damned thing. They were offered suffrage on equal standing with men at the time and they rejected it, then proceeded to get what they wanted handed to them just so. And curiously it has NEVER occurred to women EVER to strike down the draft until it just so happened that a court case might result in them being subject to it.

Have you tried look maxing? Is your maxilla protruded?
 
Tell us more about your hatred for femoids.
*ahem*
XCgq7iU.gif
 
Really? You're forgetting the counterpoint - EVERY SINGLE MAN HAS TO REGISTER WITH SELECTIVE SERVICE BEFORE HE CAN DO THAT. Women? They get it for nothing. Not a damned thing. They were offered suffrage on equal standing with men at the time and they rejected it, then proceeded to get what they wanted handed to them just so. And curiously it has NEVER occurred to women EVER to strike down the draft until it just so happened that a court case might result in them being subject to it.
So, I mean, as long as you're going to lie by omission here, why do you think male suffrage should be a privilege conferred via Selective Service and not an actual right?
Yes, the draft disparity is a problem. No, the solution is not denying the evil ovary-owners franchise en masse.

Can we get back on topic about the racist Python guy please?
 
Found this--possibly relevant

 
Found this--possibly relevant

It would actually be kind of funny if this was a case of the Onion accidentally speaking true words in jest. Alas, that's probably a bit out of the Onion's ballpark.
 
Is Python even good for anything? I hear more about JavaScript and Flash than I do about Python.
For most of its history, Javascript was not competing in Python's space, and Flash never has, so there's no way to compare the two in terms of popularity.

You only ever heard about Flash being used on the web. You mostly only heard about Javascript being used on the web. That's a small fraction of the code that runs on the world's computers. Outside of the web, Python is an absolute behemoth. It is the most popular language for those wanting to script Windows and Linux in a way that can seamlessly scale up to full blown web applications. It has totally displaced Perl in that space. It's also now the king in data science, one of the fastest growing software fields.

If you ignore its popularity though, Python is a crock of shit. It was a half-baked language in 1991, and it's a half-baked language in 2019. It was designed by an incompetent. The only reason it is good is because it is popular.

Python's whole path to success was popularity first. Popularity is a big deal in programming. Most languages, no matter how brilliantly designed, are worthless if there are no libraries for them, and conversely, if a language is dogshit, but has a shitload of libraries written for it, it can be extremely productive to use. This is the case with Python. If you want to code in Python, you can sit down at your computer, and a few imports later, you realise that someone else has already solved 90% of your problem for you. If you want to code in Ocaml, you can sit down at your computer, and spend the rest of the week writing a library for some basic piece of functionality that has nothing directly to do with your problem, but you have to write it because you're the first there. Ocaml is infinitely superior as a language to Python, but that doesn't mean shit.

How did we get here? You want to know the most important difference between Python and Ocaml? It's not the Hindley-Milner type-system. It's the community. Python has always been a touch-feely, huggy-wuggy, lovey-dovey language that welcomes all newbies and will hold your hand because, even if you failed school and you are scared of numbers, the Python community will tell you you're special and keep away the meanies on Stack Overflow. That sounds like it'd backfire, but it doesn't, because you generally get more people writing useful code for you if don't have a policy of screaming at people that they are dumb fuckwits if you suspect they're incompetent or a bit green. And once you've got enough useful code, the ball is rolling and the truly capable will come in.

Guido is an expect on this social stuff, and he's probably got a perfect read on the situation. His woke-cred here will just further cement Python, which was always a language built on feels over merit.

Ocaml, on the other hand, has a community full of smug arseholes who know that their language is fucking brilliant, and that anyone who says otherwise a moron. And they're happy to tell you this. They're also mostly French, which makes them infinitely more smug. And so Ocaml is useless for anything that needs to interact with the rest of the world, because Ocaml tells the rest of the world that it's full of stupid fuckwits.

Ocaml is right, on this, but the result is that you've got an astronomically better chance of convincing your boss to move some of the codebase to Python than to Ocaml.
 
Last edited:
They're irrelevant because they've done fuckall to countermand their destructive sisters and as it turns out women apparently aren't willing to object en masse to being framed as the biggest victims of everything ever, or the "bad feminists" would have been driven from the field already with torches. So from where I'm sitting, good intentions mean jack and fucking shit. Either the "Good Feminists" are powerless and useless or they just don't fucking care. Which is it? Incompetence and inability? Laziness and malfeasance? I thought women ran the fucking world, here, ladies, don't let me down NOW!

EDIT: And honestly, I know how this is going to play out before it reaches its climax. There's going to be a redoubling of efforts to get men to step up and BE REAL MEN by fixing their colossal fuckup. "Haha we kind of destroyed relations between the sexes and stuff in a fit of pique but we didn't mean any harm, see, we just wanted to be empowered and make you let us run things. Don't you see how important it is that you pick up the pieces for us so we can totally not smash things again?"
I don't think there is a "good feminist" majority, there is are some good feminists and a lot of lazy drones who are being gaslit into on one hand feeling like the biggest victims on another feeling like they can do everything a man can and do it better. On one hand Captain Marvel on another a pitiful thing constantly in threat of being raped or assaulted. That makes women who take it these messages to heart both insecure and encourages them to be obnoxious and in your face to "take power".
I frankly find what Guido thinks about women very insulting as someone surrounded with women who are furthest from shy.
 
And curiously it has NEVER occurred to women EVER to strike down the draft until it just so happened that a court case might result in them being subject to it.
I laughed my ass off when serious discussion started about including women in the draft. Holy fucking shit, I've never seen feminists sprint away from the "women are just as good as men at everything!" myth faster than the moment when there was a chance they'd have to put their asses on the line.
 
Back