6 ms·
I think this is laudable. I don't use the language, but I always found its obvious pronunciation a bit strong. I've had discussions of theorem provers with en
by louthy 6y ago
I think this is laudable. I don't use the language, but I always found its obvious pronunciation a bit strong. I've had discussions of theorem provers with engineers I know, and when Coq is mentioned it always ends up with either some awkward silence or sniggers (US: snickers) - which is pathetic, but it's also real.
As a man, I hadn't thought of the potential problems for women in this sphere (quelle surprise); that is absolutely the strongest argument for change. We should all strive to be inclusive and it seems the leaders in the Coq community are taking that seriously, and should be applauded.
My two penneth worth on the variants that still include Coq in the name (like 'Le Coq', etc.) is that it'll just get shortened down to Coq in real-world use. English tends to shorten terms to the minimum word or phrase that still conveys meaning.
- majewsky 6y ago> Languages tend to shorten terms to the minimum word or phrase that still conveys meaning. FTFY It's just particularly noticable with English because the more people speak a language, the more people work on trimming out the fat (consciously or unconsciously).
- Grustaf 6y ago> As a man, I hadn't thought of the potential problems for women in this sphere (quelle surprise); that is absolutely the strongest argument for change. Because women are more prudish than men? Or because the joke is about the male member? So if it was called "Qunt", it would be men that were clamouring for a name change?
- Volundr 6y agoClamouring? No, can't say I would. But it would be an awkward name and I'd be glad when it was changed. Certainly would be uncomfortable talking about it at work.
- Grustaf 6y agoMy point was: why is the name Coq worse for women?
- Volundr 6y agoNot the OP, and not a point I'd necessarily push strongly (I think it's an awkward name for everyone), but the fact that women are already often hypersexualized or treated as sexual objects in our society could certainly make it worse for women.
- Grustaf 6y agoSo because women are “objectified” they will be more sensitive to awkward names? I don’t see it. Are you sure you’re not making sexist assumptions about women being prudish?
- Volundr 6y agoYou don't see how women, knowing full well that some men are already looking at them as sex objects might be uncomfortable saying the names of sexual organs around those same men? More uncomfortable than a man who knows (or at least believes) those men aren't thinking about him that way? The article even says women have been harassed speaking about it. Look I already said I think it's an awkward name for men and women, but this feels like a failure of imagination to me.
- aklemm 6y agoThe likelihood is that you’re failing to imagine the female experience in this case. That’s far more to the point.
- louthy 6y agoNo, because TFA: > This similarity has already led to some women turning away from Coq and others getting harassed when they said they were working on Coq
- Grustaf 6y agoAnd my question was _why_ this would affect women more than men.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]