5 ms·

This reminds me of a PR merged into swift/master [1]. The PR renamed some "offensive" variables in one of the tests. It was merged almost immediately, even thou

by Cyph0n 11y ago

This reminds me of a PR merged into swift/master [1]. The PR renamed some "offensive" variables in one of the tests. It was merged almost immediately, even though it wasn't fully tested. We had a blast laughing at the stupidity of it all on Reddit [2]. [1]: https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/c2b5546512af24e52ed15c8cd204dc363c5eeeb6 https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/c2b5546512af24e52ed15c... [2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/3veu2t/swiftly_abolishing_code_slavery/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/3veu2t/swi...

arrrg 11y ago
I don’t really understand what’s wrong with using more inclusionary language. I’m so very confused by this attitude. I mean, I can understand someone not viewing it as particularly important, but you seem to view it as very obviously ridiculous which is an attitude I really struggle to understand. This seems like a tiny little harmless improvement of the world.
- Oletros 11y ago
  It is ridiculous because the meaning of master-slave in this context has nothing to do with exclusionary language and leaser-follower doesn't mean the same.
  - mercer 11y ago
    Furthermore, until we start actually running into the thorny issue of computer AI, it's consciousness and the ethical dilemma's surrounding it, the relationship actually is that of a MASTER and a SLAVE. It's like banning Huckleberry Finn for using the word 'nigger', or Der Untergang because it's about Hitler.
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  What's wrong is that the original terminology is both more correct and has been convention for decades. There really is no replacement that can convey the intended meaning. I really don't see how one can get offended by terminology, as long as the usage is not intentionally offensive. What makes it all hilarious is the fact that the PR was merged almost immediately into MASTER without being fully tested first. It's as if not merging it ASAP would have started WW3 or something.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  Indeed, I think you're correct in this. You'll find two arguments against this in the wild – "we've always used that terminology," and "it's the only way to describe the relationship." I don't think either are that convincing. I used to be pretty clear that I thought this was a stupid thing to complain about, until one day when I was presenting a small distributed software project to a group including non-technical people. I explained about the 'master' and the 'slaves', and at the end someone asked 'why did you use those terms? Isn't there something nicer we can use?'. I realised that they weren't complaining because they were offended or anything, but because slavery is sort of not a nice thing to talk about – the fact that I was used to those terms in a technical context maybe blinded me a bit to the fact that others might find them distasteful. They were changed, everyone was happier, nothing was lost.
ricksplat 11y ago
in fairness as much as this iGiveHead discussion is the stuff of nonsense I have in fact been skirting around this nomenclature - coincidentally with leader/follower too - and I do agree that this falls on the other side of appropriate. It's not "Master" that's offensive, but "Slave" does carry some obvious negative connotations that are best avoided. As a society we don't "do" slavery any more and I do kind of feel that the usage of this terminology in anything but a derisory context should be discouraged. TL;DR I totally agree that commonly used terminology that can be perceived as insensitive to some is best avoided.
- Cyph0n 11y ago
  May I ask who you think should be offended by the master/slave terminology? There are two possibilities in my view. If you're black, I think you wouldn't give a damn about using the word in a technical setting that makes sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not black but I'm using logic I feel my black friends would use. If you're white and feel the word is insensitive, you're actually making a big deal out of it when it's really not your place to do so, which is ironic in my opinion. If you think not using the word where its meaning is used properly and in no way is intended to offend will somehow lessen the heinous and repulsive nature of the acts committed by your predecessors, then you're misguided. Of course, this is the way I see it. Perhaps I'm out of my depth.
  - ricksplat 11y ago
    > If you're black, I think you wouldn't give a damn You're not, and neither am I - it's not your right to say one way or the other, but it is my right to be prudent. But this isn't just a racial issue - it's one of generally accepted social mores. Language changes and evolves. Nothing is lost in the transition to more eloquent terms. It's like when visiting Southern Africa a few years ago - whenever I asked for black coffee I was prompted "you mean coffee with hot water?" on a few occasions before I realised it's a politeness thing. As oversensitive as that might sound to my privileged ears it wasn't my place to argue - so from then on it was "coffee without milk please!" - as with leader/follower nothing was lost in the translation but I found myself getting fewer funny looks.

by Cyph0n 11y ago

arrrg 11y ago

I don’t really understand what’s wrong with using more inclusionary language. I’m so very confused by this attitude. I mean, I can understand someone not viewing it as particularly important, but you seem to view it as very obviously ridiculous which is an attitude I really struggle to understand. This seems like a tiny little harmless improvement of the world.

Oletros 11y ago
It is ridiculous because the meaning of master-slave in this context has nothing to do with exclusionary language and leaser-follower doesn't mean the same.
- mercer 11y ago
  Furthermore, until we start actually running into the thorny issue of computer AI, it's consciousness and the ethical dilemma's surrounding it, the relationship actually is that of a MASTER and a SLAVE. It's like banning Huckleberry Finn for using the word 'nigger', or Der Untergang because it's about Hitler.
Cyph0n 11y ago
What's wrong is that the original terminology is both more correct and has been convention for decades. There really is no replacement that can convey the intended meaning. I really don't see how one can get offended by terminology, as long as the usage is not intentionally offensive. What makes it all hilarious is the fact that the PR was merged almost immediately into MASTER without being fully tested first. It's as if not merging it ASAP would have started WW3 or something.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
matthewmacleod 11y ago
Indeed, I think you're correct in this. You'll find two arguments against this in the wild – "we've always used that terminology," and "it's the only way to describe the relationship." I don't think either are that convincing. I used to be pretty clear that I thought this was a stupid thing to complain about, until one day when I was presenting a small distributed software project to a group including non-technical people. I explained about the 'master' and the 'slaves', and at the end someone asked 'why did you use those terms? Isn't there something nicer we can use?'. I realised that they weren't complaining because they were offended or anything, but because slavery is sort of not a nice thing to talk about – the fact that I was used to those terms in a technical context maybe blinded me a bit to the fact that others might find them distasteful. They were changed, everyone was happier, nothing was lost.

ricksplat 11y ago

in fairness as much as this iGiveHead discussion is the stuff of nonsense I have in fact been skirting around this nomenclature - coincidentally with leader/follower too - and I do agree that this falls on the other side of appropriate. It's not "Master" that's offensive, but "Slave" does carry some obvious negative connotations that are best avoided. As a society we don't "do" slavery any more and I do kind of feel that the usage of this terminology in anything but a derisory context should be discouraged. TL;DR I totally agree that commonly used terminology that can be perceived as insensitive to some is best avoided.

Cyph0n 11y ago
May I ask who you think should be offended by the master/slave terminology? There are two possibilities in my view. If you're black, I think you wouldn't give a damn about using the word in a technical setting that makes sense. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I'm not black but I'm using logic I feel my black friends would use. If you're white and feel the word is insensitive, you're actually making a big deal out of it when it's really not your place to do so, which is ironic in my opinion. If you think not using the word where its meaning is used properly and in no way is intended to offend will somehow lessen the heinous and repulsive nature of the acts committed by your predecessors, then you're misguided. Of course, this is the way I see it. Perhaps I'm out of my depth.
- ricksplat 11y ago
  > If you're black, I think you wouldn't give a damn You're not, and neither am I - it's not your right to say one way or the other, but it is my right to be prudent. But this isn't just a racial issue - it's one of generally accepted social mores. Language changes and evolves. Nothing is lost in the transition to more eloquent terms. It's like when visiting Southern Africa a few years ago - whenever I asked for black coffee I was prompted "you mean coffee with hot water?" on a few occasions before I realised it's a politeness thing. As oversensitive as that might sound to my privileged ears it wasn't my place to argue - so from then on it was "coffee without milk please!" - as with leader/follower nothing was lost in the translation but I found myself getting fewer funny looks.