That sounds nice, but I don't think it works that way. People see software projects like this, and they develop impressions that software programmers are not professional. The result is that programmers are not treated like professionals.
People see reactions like yours and they develop impressions that software programmers are boring stick-in-the-muds. The result is that programmers are not treated as people you'd want to interact with.
In the grand scheme of things do you think that people who write like Zed are going to feel compelled to change their behaviour because you would like them too?
I would pick Zed's code over the code of a "professionnal" any day. I prefer direct, raw and to the point language over watered down politically correct speech any day. The former cares about substance while the later cares about appearances.
After years in the industry, I've become weary of the word "professionnal". It doesn't mean youre talented, it doesn't mean you have a good understanding of how computers really work. It only means you're good at being politically correct.
And that has very little value when it comes to developing software. You can't describe something rational using emotional language.
After years in the industry, I've become weary of the word "professionnal". It doesn't mean youre talented, it doesn't mean you have a good understanding of how computers really work. It only means you're good at being politically correct.
I agree with you entirely. I've heard the word "professional" at least an order of magnitude more when the topic of conversation is my mohawk rather than my work output or ability to operate in a team.
I see two options. Either I'm so middling at my job nobody would ever call me unprofessional, professional or suggest that I act more professional. Or, as I suspect, the word "professional" is a nothing but a tool to conflate the social signaling of conformance with the ability to perform a job.
"Politically correct" seems to mean "being respectful, courteous, and considerate of everyone involved". I fail to see how that's a negative thing to be avoided, or how it's "watered down".
That's negative if you use it as a filter. I'm not saying being polite is wrong, far from it. What I'm saying is that professionalism is a mediocre metric in our industry. Just like lines of code is a mediocre metric for the progression of a project.
Both metrics look good on the surface. Yet using them shows a very poor understanding of what engineering is.
Do you have any data or evidence backing this up? Because it's completely out of sync with my personal experience.
I've found that if you want to work as a software engineer with people who don't make those types of judgments and regard and pay you as a professional, there are more than enough opportunities.
You may find swearing distasteful, but for some of us working with people who judge us based on some moral assessment of our language is just as repulsive.
It really does, in fact, work that way. Vulgar language is pretty common both in OSS and, perhaps surprisingly, in private codebases. I assume you don't subscribe to LKML, or have never read the linux kernel source? grep -ir fuck in linux, you may be surprised at what you uncover.
I understand your point and on a personal level I agree. I maintain a level of professionalism in my own work. I find that kind of language ultimately unproductive.
However, the OSS world has a good deal of engineering talent that swears like a sailor and is, at the same time, quite successful. This is simply an observable fact.
You're totally right. There are plenty of super talented and productive people out there of all kinds. But that doesn't mean none of them are giving programmers in general a bad name. Some of them very likely are.
I'm much more interested in protecting individual freedom of expression than I am with worrying whether there are people out there who are so crass as to collectively judge the entire field of software development.
Code is speech. Open source projects often have a subtext of affecting a political or social change either within a software community, or sometimes beyond. In this particular case, my reading of the text is that Zed wishes to create a baseline of ridicule for those who would prefer to alter software to support extremely old browsers. It's a fair position, and while he may be able to make that point without vulgar language he may also be effectively speaking to his audience with his crude humor.
As merijnv noted above, if you feel so strongly about language you're free to not use his project. He is free to speak and code as he wishes and you are free to support what you wish. This freedom of expression is extremely valuable, not because the word "fuck" has any particular intrinsic value, but because it's a culture of permissiveness which enables people to speak their minds and attempt to affect change even if they're clumsy and crude with language. Because it allows comedy -- and everyone's perception of comedic value is different.
> Open source projects often have a subtext of affecting a political or social change either within a software community, or sometimes beyond.
One time, I almost used a custom license in one of my projects which would have required my users to read a controversial book that supported my stance on something. It was intended to be half-joking and half-thought-provoking. But I decided to abandon this and use a standard free license, figuring that it's completely the wrong venue to try to effect social change, and it would prohibit people from deriving any utility from my project. I wish all public software projects would do the same. I know, it's a pipe dream, but a man can wish, can't he?
> As merijnv noted above, if you feel so strongly about language you're free to not use his project.
It's not practical to avoid using a project just because I disagree with its attitude. And it makes no sense to boycott it on principle, as I don't think so highly of myself to think my stance on something like this will actually have any kind of effect. I only wanted to comment on this to open discussion about the matter.
Sure. But do keep in mind that truly outrageous speech and behavior really does tend to have a devastating effect on the success of projects. We don't see that here because the speech really isn't outrageous or hurtful -- it's merely comedic and vulgar.
You may want to consider that your personal values aren't representative of the norm.
I think a better analogy are the kind of programmers who make the kind of sexist jokes that you'd find in an Eminem song. This attitude proliferates and becomes such a general stereotype about "programmers" that it gives rise to activists[1] who work hard[2] to fight it.
So what makes the analogy better isthatthey promote the stereotype that programmers harm people. I agree, this is the same kind of group self policing that Bruce Schneier would describe in The Dishonest Minority when for example local merchants screw tourists. Although individual reputation isnt affected, the group reputation is.
