News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:In defence of Douglas Crockford by 10938101 on Sunday September 04, 2016 @04:07AM (#12423340)
If you wrote some software instead of talking, like Grace Hopper, Barbara Liskov and thousands of others, people would respect you automatically in this space.
Re:In defence of Douglas Crockford by xwvvvvwx on Sunday September 04, 2016 @05:46AM (#12423565)
Ugly words from a throwaway account. Do you really believe that women should be seen and not heard?
Re:In defence of Douglas Crockford by jdbernard on Sunday September 04, 2016 @06:53AM (#12423727)
That is not what they said. You are creating a strawman.
Re:In defence of Douglas Crockford by mpweiher on Sunday September 04, 2016 @09:09AM (#12424144)
In fact, it is pretty much the opposite of what they said.
Re:In defence of Douglas Crockford by xwvvvvwx on Sunday September 04, 2016 @09:36AM (#12424242)
Really? What did I misunderstand here?
Re:In defence of Douglas Crockford by nkurz on Sunday September 04, 2016 @05:07PM (#12426709)
Likely you did not understand that the clause starting with "like Grace Hopper [and] Barbara Liskov" applies to "wrote some software" not to "instead of talking". '10938101' is actively praising women who write code, and disrespecting those (of both sexes) who only talk. The attack is not directed at women, but at empty talk by non-practictioners.