To be slightly fair to the tech illiterate, there’s no sfp transceiver specified or shown in the picture… how the hell is someone supposed to plug that in?
Can’t remember which is which but if it’s organized in a top-down way (broad category first) that’s just easier to look at and find stuff in the file system. I don’t want to have to actually read and mentally process the names of every single file to figure out if it’s the one I need. Sure, the “human readable” names are fine and good when you don’t have hundreds of them you’re trying to look through, but big projects I find are way easier to parse with the category naming.
US Army logistics catalogs are organized this way. “Cookies, oatmeal” instead of “Oatmeal cookies” because it’s a lot easier to find what you need an a giant alphabetical list.
How any large organization gets away with not using YYYY-MM-DD format is beyond me.
Taking over some of my previous directors files is like chaos.
How anybody publishing entire internet memos without a date being on the first page is beyond me. Like wtf am I reading a PDF from 15 years ago or last month?
Something I’ve been for a while now is why this gender disparity is so strong in this specific area of engineering compared to all other engineering areas. People seem to claim it’s because of the “geek” stereotype, but that seems more like a symptom than a cause and I fail to see how it enforces this disparity, considering there’s nothing preventing a woman from being a geek too.
the actual reason? Nobody pushes women into the field of CS. Back in the 80s and 90s it was a similar thing, boys were fucking around with computers and software, not girls, it was considered to be a boys thing back then, and it still is now, because women are moving more frequently into higher expertise fields more often than not. CS while incredibly complicated, and difficult, is also just code monkey simulator at the end of the day. You could just write a PHD thesis on some mathematical shit and be as involved with CS while having been a mathematician instead lmao.
Nobody pushed me into this field, I followed it because I liked it. Same thing with kids messing around with computers in the 80’s. Nobody was pushing boys to do that, they just did. For some reason more men enjoy working with computers than women. I’ve worked with a few female coders, and they were good at their jobs, but women are definitely a minority in the field.
I probably would have gone into tech earlier if I’d had a female role model in tech. When my (male) friends started programming in high school, I was very interested and wanted to learn it too. But it literally didn’t occur to me that I could, until ten years later, when I was already far along in a study in the humanities. I ended up in data/ software development in the end, but it took me ten years longer because I didn’t realise earlier that it was a field I could get into if I wanted.
So long story short, it’s not just a matter of interest, there are societal factors that play a role too.
May have something to do with computers as they exist being defined by male psychology. Well, it’s understandable why swords, guns, rockets are, and same with computers.
Basically sending instructions to change state. I don’t know how can a computer exist which doesn’t work like this and is still usable for the humanity, but this seems to be psychologically a bit more of a male thing. Maybe there’s nothing problematic for women but aesthetics there.
If it’s something deeper, then maybe some analog optical\quantum\whatever computers of the future will push us to change paradigms for some drastic change in efficiency. And maybe those new paradigms will be more appealing to women.
Which is ironic, because women were the “code monkeys” of back when human computers were a thing - humans actually doing the computing by hand; and most of them were women.
Single character variable names are my pet peeve. I even name iterator variables a real word instead of “i” now… (although writing the OG low level for loops is kinda rare for me now)
Naming things “x”… shudder. Well, the entire world is getting to see how that idea transpires hahah
I hate short variable names in general too, but am okay with them for iterators where i and j represent only indices, and when x/y/z represent coordinates (like a for loop going over x coordinates). In most cases I actually prefer this since it keeps me from having to think about whether I’m looking at an integer iterator or object/dictionary iterator loop, as long as the loop remains short. When it gets to be ridiculous in size, even i and j are annoying. Any other short names are a no go for me though. And my god, the abbreviations… Those are the worst.
That’s very reasonable, I can get behind that. (my stance is a partly irrational overreaction and I’m totally aware of it lol)
Abbreviations are definitely annoying. My least favourite thing to do with them is “Hungarian notation”. It’s like… in a statically typed context it’s useless, and in a dynamically typed context it’s like… kind of a sign you need to refactor
Hungarian notation makes sense in a dynamically typed usage (which I despise, but this essentially makes them notationally typed at least) or where you’re editor/IDE is so simple it can’t give you more information, which I can’t see ever being the case in the modern day.
Most people use the term “Hungarian Notation” to mean only adding an indicator of type to a variable or function name. While this is one of the ways in which it has been used (and actually made sense in certain old environments, although those days are long, long behind us now), it’s not the only way that it can be used.
We can use the same concept (prepending or appending an indicator from a standard selection) to denote other, more useful categories that the environment won’t keep straight for us, or won’t warn us about in easy-to-understand ways. In my own projects I usually append a single letter to the ends of my variable names to indicate scope, which helps me stay more modular, and also allows me to choose sensible variable names without fear of clashing with something else I’ve forgotten about.
X, y, and z should only be used when working with things with dimensions larger than 1. Indexing into a 2D array, x and y are great uses. I’m also totally fine with i and j for indexer/iterator when appropriate, but I hate when people try to make short variable names for no good reason. We have auto-complete just about everywhere now. Make the names descriptive. There’s literally no reason not to.
programmer_humor
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.