Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-conference-for-old-men dept.

Douglas Crockford (JSON, JSLint, JSMin, Javascript: The Good Parts) is a founding father of modern Javascript. He is a frequent speaker on the Javascript circuit and, until recently, was the scheduled as the keynote speaker for the Nodevember Conference. For reasons no one can explain, he was removed from the conference schedule to help foster inclusivity. No one (including Crockford) knows why he was banned. Internet commenters have speculated it may have been due to a talk titled "Monads and Gonads" or slut shaming the "promiscuous" web or a his use of the gender (and species) exclusive phrase "hanging out there like a pair of dog balls". Others believe it's because he's a curmudgeon (aka grumpy old white cis heterosexual man). One of the Nodevember organizers (not involved with the decision to ban Crockford) has stepped down.

This is not the first time Crockford has experienced censorship -- he previously ported Maniac Mansion to the NES.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:02PM (#398312)

    That's great.

    Unfortunately we've already had 20 years of PC and got to witness how it operates, from Tim Cook to Dawkins.

    If it was salvageable, it would have made some improvement in the implementation by now. Instead it has gotten worse.

    And let's not kid ourselves, the moral authority only goes one way with this.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:19PM (#398321)

    What implementation?

    Are you arguing that the tech industry has been an economic loser over the last 20 years coincident with the rise of political correctness?

    Because I'm pretty sure Silicon Valley is no rust-belt ghost town.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:01PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:01PM (#398343) Journal

      Are you arguing that the tech industry has been an economic loser over the last 20 years coincident with the rise of political correctness?

      Where would we be without a non sequitur argument? Why would PC be the only factor in the economic success or failure of the tech industry?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:07PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:07PM (#398350)

        I dunno. That's why I asked wtf they were talking about.
        Since you seem to know what were talking about, how about letting me in on the secret?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:31PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:31PM (#398361) Journal
          They were talking about implementation of political correctness. Overreacting is supposedly the problem, but no one who's invested in the ideology can be bothered to fix it.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:38PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:38PM (#398370)

            "Implementations of political correctness?"

            What, exactly, would those implementations be?
            Is there a PC 1.0? 3.11? 4.0?

            Lol. No wonder I didn't get it. It was a joke.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:09AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:09AM (#398399)

              Christ, you can't even troll properly. Keep crying, your tears are delicious.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:28AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:28AM (#398412)

                Wait... Which is it, am I trolling or am I crying?
                At least I'm not acting out.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:23AM

              by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:23AM (#398476)

              Of course, the versions spew out ever faster. Each crazier. Started out almost indistinguishable from normal sane politeness, the difference was it was about an agenda of reeducation instead of politeness. Most of us didn't even see it at first but the Cultural Marxists knew from the start what they were doing. Nobody objected much when the "N" word went out of polite conversation. Fair enough, that was the polite thing. Did it stop there? Of course not. Suddenly Negro (except for the United Negro College Fund) went too, then Colored (except for the NAACP) and Black (except BLM) and we are expected to use the convoluted "African American" now, which engrains the whole hyphenated American meme. Of course that was all back several revisions of P.C. ago. Now we are over the rainbow into crazyland. Now if you can't succeed at "spot the trannie" every time AND somehow know/guess it's preferred pronoun you are a hater.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:33AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:33AM (#398550)

                Did you just have a PC chimp-out?

                I think you did!

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:26PM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:26PM (#398898) Homepage
                "its", not "it's"
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:56PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:56PM (#398692) Journal

              "Implementations of political correctness?"

              What, exactly, would those implementations be?

              I guess you'll have to think about that one a little.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:34PM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:34PM (#398330) Journal

    Dawkins? Richard Dawkins? Have I missed something?

    This is why I hate SJWs. They're white. They're male. They're cis+het. They do stupid shit like this. This is not how you get women programmers.

    The backlash is even worse, and it affects people like me here in one (maybe?) of the demographics they're ostensibly trying to protect from hearing such horrible, triggery things like “hanging out there like a pair of dog balls.” Hello, SJW asshats! Earth to SJWs! Have you ever seen dog balls just hanging there? That's what they do. They're there. They hang out there. Personally I find it very mildly disgusting, but I'm not a dog person. Deal with it! That's life! And what's the alternative? Putting clothing on dogs? That's even stupider! Next thing you'll know they'll be playing poker! Mass hysteria!

    Again, I may not be 100% up on every last idiom or saying, but I would assume that if one is saying that something is hanging out there like a pair of dog balls, one is saying that one finds it to some degree disgusting.

    Gonads, per Wikipedia:

    A gonad or sex gland or reproductive gland is an endocrine gland that produces the gametes (sex cells) of an organism. In the female of the species the reproductive cells are the egg cells, and in the male the reproductive cells are the sperm.

    Everybody has them! (For the most part.) May not be the most tasteful of titles, but for fucking fucks sake!

    Personally, though, I would encourage him to think twice before slut shaming. The world needs a few sluts, no? We have the technology to make being a slut pretty safe. But banning him over that?! Is this a conference about sexual politics, human trafficking, reproductive behaviors, etc? No? Then fuck you, Nodevember. Fuck you because the backlash will hit me instead of you white cis+het manginas!

    *breathes*

    So, how does Tsubasa propose we get women programmers to precipitate out of the æther? Jobs, you nincompoops! Jobs! You know what motivates a woman to learn programming like nothing else? JOBS! WELL PAYING, CUSHY JOBS! What is Tsubasa's secret to creating women programmers? JOBS YOU IDIOTS!

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:40PM (#398334)

      Seems like SJWs are a very minor factor in your issues.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:14PM (#398354)

        This is why all SJWs love them some kurenai.tsubasa! It is kind of a love/hate relationship.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by JNCF on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:23AM

      by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:23AM (#398475) Journal

      Again, I may not be 100% up on every last idiom or saying, but I would assume that if one is saying that something is hanging out there like a pair of dog balls, one is saying that one finds it to some degree disgusting.

      It was that combined with a geometric comparison. Crockford's use of that description was in reference to the tail end of an anonymous function which is wrapped in parens and then immediately invoked, as so:


          (function () {

              })();

      • (Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:28AM

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:28AM (#398480)

        "Self-executing anonymous function" or "anonymous function with dog balls". I call the curly braces left mustache and right mustache but i don't think i'd call anything "dog balls", lol. I'll try it at work and see how that goes. Guessing not well!

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:06AM

          by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:06AM (#398604)

          If you work with any Brits, then use the term "dogs bollocks", as that is slang for "outstanding" (for obvious reasons).
          Calling something "bollocks", just means bad.

          --
          Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
          • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:45PM

            by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:45PM (#398745)

            Never understood that. Bollocks might be good or bad, depending on context. Too vauge.

            --
            "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
          • (Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:03PM

            by purple_cobra (1435) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:03PM (#398782)

            There's also the word 'bollocksed' (i.e. broken). And you might hear something called "the bollocks", i.e. having a silent dog, which is even more confusing.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:46PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:46PM (#398840)

              Hmm, not being a Brit, I always thought that "bollocks" derived from "bullocks", something that seems to be know in America as "Truck Nutz". Animal husbandry, doncha know! (BTW, the American equivalent to "dog's balls" would be "the cat's pajamas". Is it always the case that American idiom is less crude than British?)

      • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:37AM

        by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:37AM (#398489) Journal

        Ah, I see. Yeah, that's a helluva construct. Pretty unique to ECMA/Javascript (in usage).

        • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:40AM

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @02:40AM (#398491) Journal

          Bah, shouldn't have hit submit so quickly. Sorry to reply to myself. The point of that construct is to create a self-contained scope. It's almost kind of like a class if done properly, but it's not.

          • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:15AM

            by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:15AM (#398515) Journal

            The point of that construct is to create a self-contained scope.

            Yeah, and he wasn't even opposed to the purpose of the construct, he was opposed to the positioning of the brackets. He preferred to wrap the parens around the invocation, a practice I found myself agreeing with:


                (function () {

                    }());

            I haven't written JavaScript like that since I started using build tools that allow proper modules -- though those build tools rely on this construct under the hood, so my final production code does use it.

            • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:33AM

              by jimshatt (978) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:33AM (#398608) Journal
              Why the outer parens at all?

              function(a) { alert(a); }('sucking eggs'); // Doesn't work
              (function(a) { alert(a); }('sucking eggs')); // Works
              (function(a) { alert(a); })('sucking eggs'); // Works

              • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:48PM

                by nitehawk214 (1304) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:48PM (#398748)

                Wait, both of the last 2 cases work? I assumed that only the last case worked as that is how I always see it done.

                I like the middle one much more.

                --
                "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
              • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:17PM

                by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:17PM (#398787) Journal

                In most real cases, the outer parens aren't necessary. If you change your first example to be the value assigned to a variable, it will work:

                var x = function(a) { alert(a); }('sucking eggs')

                As for why we would want to add outer parens, it's a matter of human readability. Let's break this example up into multiple lines.

                var x = function(a) {
                    alert(a);
                }('sucking eggs')

                Now, if you looked at the first line of that function, you could be forgiven for assuming that the value of x is currently a function (though of course x is undefined, since that is the value returned by the function). Let's look at it with parens:

                var x = (function(a) {
                    alert(a);
                }('sucking eggs'))

                Reading the first line, you should already know that we're going to do something with that function before assigning anything to x.

                My only real argument against dog-balls-style is that it sort of undermines and confuses this point, since the parens only actually encompass the anonymous function and the invocation that comes after the end-paren. Looking to the end of the parens, a reader could still assume that x was a function. Of course the invocation is right next to it, not broken off onto another line that's potentially off-screen, and I don't think this is nearly as important of a distinction for readability.

                • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:54PM

                  by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:54PM (#398821) Journal

                  My only real argument against dog-balls-style is that it sort of undermines and confuses this point, since the parens only actually encompass the anonymous function and not the invocation that comes after the end-paren.

                  Fixed that for me.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:44AM

            by stormwyrm (717) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:44AM (#398598) Journal
            This is old hat in Lisp. It was noticed long ago that the closures created by functions in Lisp were essentially equivalent to objects [c2.com]. It irritates me that most of the hits when searching for the equivalence of closures and objects refer to that JavaScript idiom rather than in Lisp where it originated.
            --
            Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
            • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:12AM

              by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:12AM (#398614) Journal
              That's a very verbose brain dump. For a more elegant treatment of the concept, I'd advise you to look at the Composite Object Lambda Architecture model from VPRI.
              --
              sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:20PM

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday September 07 2016, @10:20PM (#398896) Homepage
          looks very lambda-ey to me, it's just a definition of an anonymous function followed by the syntax to invoke said function. The precise syntax is a combination of historical languages, but it harks back to pure mathematical notation that predates electronic computers.
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves