Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 07 May 2003
Offline Last Active Today, 01:39 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Do you usually prefix your classes with the letter 'C' or something e...

Today, 01:28 PM

Actually, m_ for members and g_ for globals helps quite a bit while reading a lot of unknown code.

The problem is that this kind of convention is brittle. It encodes information about scope into the variable name, but if you refactor to change scope the encoding is wrong and the variable must be renamed.  Forget or neglect to rename the variable and now you've got misleading information.

Any kind of extra encoded information in a variable name can be omitted or out of date by mistake; that holds regardless of convention. I don't feel that's a strong enough argument against the practice. I would argue that if the scope of a variable has changed, then its semantics have changed enough to warrant a rename.

A far more robust convention is to require the use of this-> for members and to require full namespace naming for globals. The compiler can then help you by catching incorrect usage.

I didn't know you could ask the compiler to flag members accessed without an explicit this-> and full namespace qualification of symbols within the current namespace. How does one do so? Without that compiler enforcement, using this-> and full namespace qualification are just more conventions...

In Topic: Do you usually prefix your classes with the letter 'C' or something e...

Yesterday, 05:05 PM

At this point, the only reason I'd entertain prefixing a class name with "C" is if I'm mixing structs and classes in my code and I wanted to be able to forward declare the identifier correctly without going back to look at its declaration. In a codebase sufficiently large that hitting "Go to Definition" can take longer than a minute, this can actually be quite useful, if perhaps of dubious value in the general scheme of things. For small codebases, it's basically not a problem.

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

25 May 2016 - 05:06 PM

I have no (conscious) reason to "justify" the status quo. If that was directed at me, that is a false assumption on your part attacking my motives, and attacking me as an individual, rather than attacking my ideas.


It was simply an observation of behaviour that often comes up in discussions of feminist issues, not directed specifically at you.


And yes, if the status quo benefits me, then logically I do have reason to oppose change to it. That applies in general; we see it all the time in other arenas. Where I live, for instance, the price of the average detached home has gone up to over $1million - completely out of reach for any aspiring new homeowner not willing to save for 25 years just to afford a 20% down payment. There's much agitation to politicians to do something about the unaffordable real estate here, but nothing gets done - because a good percentage of voters here, and the politicians themselves, bought into the market decades ago and therefore only benefit from the insane real estate prices. Some of them are even using the value of their homes and land as their retirement funds! Politicians, and those voters, have every incentive to oppose change at every turn, even if they also have incentive to pretend that they don't due to the outcry in the press on the subject.


Similarly, since the status quo does currently benefit men, both of us do have reason to oppose change. This is one reason among many feminists are skeptical of men who identify as feminists - why identify with a movement that takes away something that benefits you, unless you have ulterior motives? I had my own father ask me that once! And of course, the answer to that is: because the conviction with which we hold our values is stronger than our inclination to preserve our present advantages.


In-general, the research I am referring to is the (recent) studies showing that very young infants, and even newborns on the very day they come out of the womb, have innate affinities for different types of objects. It has been connected, by some studies, to the way testosterone affects the development of the brain - with pros and cons for men and pros and cons to women, on average. Other studies suggest that the amount of androgen(?) exposure in the womb may affect default dispositions towards different objects - females who experienced greater amounts of androgen had preferences for "boy" toys.
The test was conducted by having trucks and dolls of different colors and rounded verses angular edges, and measuring how long day-old newborns gazed at each, and how long six-month olds and 12-month olds played with each.
The same test has been carried out with infant monkeys (wild and in captivity), with similar innate preferences displayed.
Another test involved measuring the responses of male and female infants in their mothers' arms, when the mother suddenly freezes the muscles in her face and gets perfectly still. Again, differences in reactions observed between males and females.


I'm aware of those studies. But what do those have to do with programming? Your point was specifically about programming. And you said "mostly biology." That "mostly" is what I'm mainly concerned with here. Pointing out that some inclinations may be partially biological in origin is not the same thing as saying that it looks to you like one specific inclination IS "mostly biological" in origin.


I'm not fundamentally opposed to exploring the idea that some inclinations that are different between genders are biological in origin, but I see absolutely no reason to hold that idea as a default hypothesis, particularly when the belief that women are not inclined to the same things as men is used to justify bigotry and conscious preservation of male privilege. My values force me to call out instances where the "default hypothesis" can be used to promote inequality. More than saying that you're likely wrong, I'm saying that your default hypothesis shouldn't be the default, and I'm asking you why you hold it as your default hypothesis.


I think your questions do have answers, and those answers do exist on the internet; I am not the best person to answer them, as I'm not an expert either. But the material is there, if you need to convince yourself. I suggest if you genuinely do want to learn, that you ask on a forum (or lurk a forum) dedicated to these issues and not on a game development site. ;)

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

25 May 2016 - 08:36 AM

...because if we're talking female discrimination, rather than, say, racial discrimination, it looks to me like females aren't in programming because of choice, and it looks like that choice is mostly biological,

I have to jump in again. So far as I am aware, there is ZERO evidence of this; in fact, as far as I know it's total bullshit mostly repeated by people who want to justify the status quo and not doing anything about it.

What "biology" do you think causes women not to be interested in programming? What research has brought you to this conclusion?

In Topic: USC Canceled Video Game Panel For Too Many Men

24 May 2016 - 12:35 PM

I'm not saying it solved everywhere. I'm saying that it CAN BE DONE.

Okay, but the way your posts are worded makes it seem like you're saying that it is solved, and presenting this as a counter-claim to those (including the link you cited) saying that no, in the US and Western culture in general, it is not solved. You're also coming across as saying that the way to solve the problem is simply for more women to apply - but we (and your link) are saying that it isn't that simple.