Sexism in the Ruby community: how does the Python community manage it?

[Chris Angelico]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:07:48 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> Thing is, it's all very well to avoid using one particular module
>> because you don't like its name... but what happens when there are a
>> goodly number of such ill-named modules? Let's suppose you don't like
>> the name "readline" because it offends your religion. (I'm deliberately
>> picking something that I can't imagine actually being offensive; my
>> sincere and humble apologies if there is anyone who actually IS offended
>> by that name.) You might be able to use libedit instead, but what if
>> that name also is offensive to you? (Again, apologies if it really is.)
>> How long are you going to poke around for alternative modules before you
>> throw your hands up and say "This language sucks, all its modules have
>> stupid names"?
>
> Okay, I get that you're not actually talking about people being offended
> by modules literally called "readline" and "libedit". I'm not really sure
> what conclusion we're supposed to draw from this little thought-
> experiment:

It was said previously that the language wasn't at fault, the
community was. My point is that, if a large proportion of third-party
modules are equally offensive, the language _may as well_ be the
problem, because sooner or later you're going to run into a problem.

> Some yahoo has written a module called "upskirt"? Pfft, that's what
> yahoos do. I don't condone it, but as an isolated incident I don't lose
> any sleep over it either. That same module is (hypothetically) put into
> the standard library under that name, or widely used throughout the
> community? *That* would be a worry.

What if that module happens to be the very best tool for some job? Do
you roll your own clone of it just to avoid the name? If not, it WILL
eventually be widely used in the community.

>> Personally, I would avoid using profane names, if only because I don't
>> like trying to explain to my boss what it is I'm using.
>
> So you only use sacred names? Isn't that blasphemous?

Okay. Specific example: I created a debugging feature a while ago that
I called "idkfa". You'll probably instantly recognize the reference.
Trouble is, my boss has a pathological dislike for games and
everything to do with them, so he objected to that feature, just
because of its name. (I, being quite definitely Chaotic Neutral on the
alignment scale, therefore vowed to put as many gaming references as
possible into my code from there on in... but to veil them a bit so
they wouldn't offend.) I tend to avoid profanity anyway, but what I'm
getting at here is avoidance of what will cause offense; to most of
you, a gaming reference won't cause any, so it doesn't matter, but to
me it did.

>> "You use Python?
>> What's that?" "It's a language, named after a comedy group." "Great!" -
>> vs - "You use Brainf--? What's that?" "Uhh... it's a language... that I
>> don't like to say the name of. Uhh...." - awkward.
>
> But not *anywhere* near as awkward as explain why you're using Brainfuck
> instead of, well, *just about any other friggin' language in the world*.
> It's a language designed to be mind-blowingly difficult to use. And
> you're using it instead of Forth or APL because...?

Yeah, sure, but I had some trouble explaining my use of Pike, since
its history and derivation are about MUDs - games. And I had to write
my own client for a particular service of ours because basic
telnet/netcat wasn't sufficient and I couldn't bring in a MUD client
because that's gaming. See above re his dislike of games.

> I'm not actually missing the point. I'm pointing out that you appear to
> be inventing a problem that doesn't exist. When was the last time you
> were in the position of having to choose whether or not to use an actual
> useful product that had an embarrassing or offensive name?

When I wrote my own socket-services client rather than just deploying
a MUD client, as mentioned above. I don't remember what exactly I
needed other than readline and a socket, but it was something simple
that most MUD clients have - probably aliases or something - and I had
to write my own client rather than use an off-the-shelf. The software
was fine, the alternative was inferior, and it was a name problem.

>> Same with module
>> names. When I watched a Ruby app installing itself, I googled a few of
>> the gem names out of morbid curiosity, and to be quite frank, I dislike
>> a lot of them. Module names should be descriptive, not fancy. And I
>> really don't think they need profanity, which some people apparently
>> disagree with.
>
> Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Are you suggesting that the Ruby
> community does have a problem with obscene names that are not just
> widespread, but in widespread use? Well, that's certainly an interesting
> data point.

Not obscene in most cases, but certainly immature. See my other post
for a quick run-down based on what I eyeballed in Spree's deps.

ChrisA