5 ms·

This was an ok article before it started ranting on about privilege and bias and codes of conducts for projects. I lost interest then.

by jbb555 10y ago

fao_ 10y ago
Could you quote the parts that you thought were a rant? I'm curious, as I read it in an even tone, and thought it was fine. (I think it would be interesting to see your line of thought)
- zxexz 10y ago
  I think jbb555 is referring to the 'On "Free Time"' section. I see where they're coming from, and do partially agree that an article on compilers isn't really the place for a section of that sort (I like technical/learning articles to be 'atomic', but that's just personal preference). However, I also fullheartedly agree with with the content of the section in question, and would be hesitant to call it a 'rant'. Does seem like a section that could stand on its own as a post, though. Perhaps even be linked to from this post?
- ThatGeoGuy 10y ago
  I think it has more to do with the fact that the article starts taking a topic that's completely orthogonal to everything before it. There's some good technical advice beforehand about getting into compiler hacking, but as soon as you break into the "On Free Time" section, the article for some bizarre reason delves into how most compiler hackers are privileged. Sure, like anything in tech most people doing it are likely male and probably white, but I think the entire section is for a different article entirely. Reading it, it appears that the author cares more about making a point about how compiler hackers are mostly "privileged" and how you need to find a code of conduct so you can avoid the assholes (the author admits it won't be a silver bullet, but that's not the point here). In any case, the whole section doesn't really give much advice to people who _already_ want to be compiler wizards, but sounds more like trying to sell becoming one to somebody who is nervous about getting into tech in general. As I mentioned before, it comes off as orthogonal to what the article introduces itself as.
  - breck 10y ago
    I also really liked this article but found that bit orthogonal. Thought that comes to mind is like clean code an essay should ideally do one thing and do it well...but if it has to do more than one thing, it should do what it says. I'd suggest splitting the article into 2 (["So You Want to Be a (Compiler) Wizard", "Contributing to Open Source Compiler Projects"]) or if not that then update the title "So You Want to Be a (Compiler) Wizard; Plus Thoughts on Contributing to Open Source Compiler Projects".
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    I read it as an article aimed at people who want to get into open source for the first time, specifically targeted at compilers, because that's what the author knows. Like it or not, the social aspects of open source communities is very relevant to that target audience.
    - brighteyes 10y ago
      Social aspects matter, however, what the article does is talk about them from one very specific political position. It will look familiar and clear to people sharing that position, but it excludes others with a different political worldview.
      - sanderjd 10y ago
        It's the author's article so it's their prerogative to choose the content. They made other editorial choices in all the other sections, which I'm sure different people both do and don't disagree with. That's the nature of writing from a personal perspective, and of course there are pros and cons as compared with other styles of writing.
sanderjd 10y ago
That wasn't ranting, it was cogent and well-structured and made good points. If you disagree with those points, say so, but don't diminish it by calling it a rant. I think those points are extremely relevant for an article targeted at people trying to get involved in open source. The for-pay vs. free-time divide is a fundamental problem with using open source work as an "in" to the industry, and despite being scoff-worthy to some people, it's helpful for people coming into this with fresh eyes (ie. the target audience of the article) to be given some context.
- brighteyes 10y ago
  It's that the points mentioned are the same old familiar points, and the arguments against them are also the same old familiar ones. For example, the article says "men have more privilege than women", based on the criteria provided, which are > 1. Who don’t have families to take care of (kids, parents, whatever) > 2. who have a good, steady income (i.e. not learning while, say, balancing two part-time jobs) > 3. who live close to work (minimizing a commute) And yes, women are more likely to have people to take care of. However, there are also reasons to say women are more privileged than men in this context. For example, 4. Are in college, as a lot of open source contributors are college students. Women are a lot more likely to get into college than men. 5. Are not in jail or prison. Women are far less likely to be in those situations. In other words, it is horribly simplistic to say "men have more privilege than women" in this context. It's just lazy regurgitating of the familiar talking points. It's not helpful. Yes, it's worth mentioning some people have an easier way into open source. But no, it's a bad idea to turn this into an oversimplified and false matter of "men > women".
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    Firstly, I was responding to the idea that this topic is irrelevant or orthogonal to the rest of the article - you don't seem to disagree with that, but rather disagree with the specific points that were made. Secondly, "the same old familiar points" assumes everyone has the same familiarity with the topic that you do, which of course isn't true in general, and the target audience of the article is actively people who are unlikely to have come across this.
gjm11 10y ago
Good news! That was at the end of the article, so you didn't miss things you might have been interested in. But the "ranting" isn't particularly ranty and has (it seems to me) a specific purpose: the author is concerned that some people reading his article might be discouraged from getting into open source software by the biases he describes, and wants to encourage them not to be. "But it can't stop you", he says: that's the point. So I think the author is deliberately making a tradeoff: by inserting that material, he hopes to encourage any readers he has from "less privileged" groups not to give up if things get difficult, even if it means that some people from "more privileged" groups who don't like reading about privilege and bias and codes and conduct are put off. Is it a good tradeoff? I dunno. It doesn't seem obviously bad.
- teacup50 10y ago
  It comes across as offensive and discouraging to those that believe that "intersectionality" is in itself discriminatory, both towards the racial/gender classifications being infantilized, and the racial/gender classifications who are assumed to be privileged. As an extension, the entire presumption of the necessity of a "code of conduct" is in itself "problematic", in that it ascribes problematic behavior to what are in fact welcoming, professional, pro-actively inclusive communities that simply do not accept at face value the discriminatory precepts (racial, gender, or otherwise) of intersectionality.
  - teacup50 10y ago
    The downvoting demonstrates exactly why the article's well-poisoning is offensive; the tautological ideology of intersectionality leaves no room for dissent in the marketplace of ideas, as any dissent merely proves the original premise of structural discrimination and privilege that applies to blunt categories of people on the basis of gender and race, and thus dissent is not to be considered an invitation to dialog, but damaging ignorance at best, "hate speech" at worst, and worthy of silencing regardless.
    - yoo1I 10y ago
      The marketplace of ideas just, rightly, rejected your elaborate but essentially baseless claim that anti-discrimination victimizes everyone who is not in the group being "de-victimized". It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
WalterBright 10y ago
Having been into compilers for 40 years, I can confidently say that if you need validation, encouragement, support, etc., from others you're going into the wrong field. I'm a white male, and pretty much 100% of people told me I was not good enough to write a compiler, that I was sure to fail, that I could not possibly compete against Big Corporations, etc. The same goes for inventing a new programming language. Meanwhile, I've had a rewarding career doing it :-)

This was an ok article before it started ranting on about privilege and bias and codes of conducts for projects. I lost interest then.

by jbb555 10y ago

This was an ok article before it started ranting on about privilege and bias and codes of conducts for projects. I lost interest then.

fao_ 10y ago

Could you quote the parts that you thought were a rant? I'm curious, as I read it in an even tone, and thought it was fine. (I think it would be interesting to see your line of thought)

zxexz 10y ago
I think jbb555 is referring to the 'On "Free Time"' section. I see where they're coming from, and do partially agree that an article on compilers isn't really the place for a section of that sort (I like technical/learning articles to be 'atomic', but that's just personal preference). However, I also fullheartedly agree with with the content of the section in question, and would be hesitant to call it a 'rant'. Does seem like a section that could stand on its own as a post, though. Perhaps even be linked to from this post?
ThatGeoGuy 10y ago
I think it has more to do with the fact that the article starts taking a topic that's completely orthogonal to everything before it. There's some good technical advice beforehand about getting into compiler hacking, but as soon as you break into the "On Free Time" section, the article for some bizarre reason delves into how most compiler hackers are privileged. Sure, like anything in tech most people doing it are likely male and probably white, but I think the entire section is for a different article entirely. Reading it, it appears that the author cares more about making a point about how compiler hackers are mostly "privileged" and how you need to find a code of conduct so you can avoid the assholes (the author admits it won't be a silver bullet, but that's not the point here). In any case, the whole section doesn't really give much advice to people who _already_ want to be compiler wizards, but sounds more like trying to sell becoming one to somebody who is nervous about getting into tech in general. As I mentioned before, it comes off as orthogonal to what the article introduces itself as.
- breck 10y ago
  I also really liked this article but found that bit orthogonal. Thought that comes to mind is like clean code an essay should ideally do one thing and do it well...but if it has to do more than one thing, it should do what it says. I'd suggest splitting the article into 2 (["So You Want to Be a (Compiler) Wizard", "Contributing to Open Source Compiler Projects"]) or if not that then update the title "So You Want to Be a (Compiler) Wizard; Plus Thoughts on Contributing to Open Source Compiler Projects".
- sanderjd 10y ago
  I read it as an article aimed at people who want to get into open source for the first time, specifically targeted at compilers, because that's what the author knows. Like it or not, the social aspects of open source communities is very relevant to that target audience.
  - brighteyes 10y ago
    Social aspects matter, however, what the article does is talk about them from one very specific political position. It will look familiar and clear to people sharing that position, but it excludes others with a different political worldview.
    - sanderjd 10y ago
      It's the author's article so it's their prerogative to choose the content. They made other editorial choices in all the other sections, which I'm sure different people both do and don't disagree with. That's the nature of writing from a personal perspective, and of course there are pros and cons as compared with other styles of writing.

sanderjd 10y ago

That wasn't ranting, it was cogent and well-structured and made good points. If you disagree with those points, say so, but don't diminish it by calling it a rant. I think those points are extremely relevant for an article targeted at people trying to get involved in open source. The for-pay vs. free-time divide is a fundamental problem with using open source work as an "in" to the industry, and despite being scoff-worthy to some people, it's helpful for people coming into this with fresh eyes (ie. the target audience of the article) to be given some context.

brighteyes 10y ago
It's that the points mentioned are the same old familiar points, and the arguments against them are also the same old familiar ones. For example, the article says "men have more privilege than women", based on the criteria provided, which are > 1. Who don’t have families to take care of (kids, parents, whatever) > 2. who have a good, steady income (i.e. not learning while, say, balancing two part-time jobs) > 3. who live close to work (minimizing a commute) And yes, women are more likely to have people to take care of. However, there are also reasons to say women are more privileged than men in this context. For example, 4. Are in college, as a lot of open source contributors are college students. Women are a lot more likely to get into college than men. 5. Are not in jail or prison. Women are far less likely to be in those situations. In other words, it is horribly simplistic to say "men have more privilege than women" in this context. It's just lazy regurgitating of the familiar talking points. It's not helpful. Yes, it's worth mentioning some people have an easier way into open source. But no, it's a bad idea to turn this into an oversimplified and false matter of "men > women".
- sanderjd 10y ago
  Firstly, I was responding to the idea that this topic is irrelevant or orthogonal to the rest of the article - you don't seem to disagree with that, but rather disagree with the specific points that were made. Secondly, "the same old familiar points" assumes everyone has the same familiarity with the topic that you do, which of course isn't true in general, and the target audience of the article is actively people who are unlikely to have come across this.

gjm11 10y ago

Good news! That was at the end of the article, so you didn't miss things you might have been interested in. But the "ranting" isn't particularly ranty and has (it seems to me) a specific purpose: the author is concerned that some people reading his article might be discouraged from getting into open source software by the biases he describes, and wants to encourage them not to be. "But it can't stop you", he says: that's the point. So I think the author is deliberately making a tradeoff: by inserting that material, he hopes to encourage any readers he has from "less privileged" groups not to give up if things get difficult, even if it means that some people from "more privileged" groups who don't like reading about privilege and bias and codes and conduct are put off. Is it a good tradeoff? I dunno. It doesn't seem obviously bad.

teacup50 10y ago
It comes across as offensive and discouraging to those that believe that "intersectionality" is in itself discriminatory, both towards the racial/gender classifications being infantilized, and the racial/gender classifications who are assumed to be privileged. As an extension, the entire presumption of the necessity of a "code of conduct" is in itself "problematic", in that it ascribes problematic behavior to what are in fact welcoming, professional, pro-actively inclusive communities that simply do not accept at face value the discriminatory precepts (racial, gender, or otherwise) of intersectionality.
- teacup50 10y ago
  The downvoting demonstrates exactly why the article's well-poisoning is offensive; the tautological ideology of intersectionality leaves no room for dissent in the marketplace of ideas, as any dissent merely proves the original premise of structural discrimination and privilege that applies to blunt categories of people on the basis of gender and race, and thus dissent is not to be considered an invitation to dialog, but damaging ignorance at best, "hate speech" at worst, and worthy of silencing regardless.
  - yoo1I 10y ago
    The marketplace of ideas just, rightly, rejected your elaborate but essentially baseless claim that anti-discrimination victimizes everyone who is not in the group being "de-victimized". It would be comical if it wasn't so sad.

WalterBright 10y ago

Having been into compilers for 40 years, I can confidently say that if you need validation, encouragement, support, etc., from others you're going into the wrong field. I'm a white male, and pretty much 100% of people told me I was not good enough to write a compiler, that I was sure to fail, that I could not possibly compete against Big Corporations, etc. The same goes for inventing a new programming language. Meanwhile, I've had a rewarding career doing it :-)