"CppCon 2019: Herb Sutter “De-fragmenting C++: Making Exceptions and RTTI More Affordable and Usable”"

[Lynn McGuire]

"CppCon 2019: Herb Sutter “De-fragmenting C++: Making Exceptions and
RTTI More Affordable and Usable”"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARYP83yNAWk&t=1s

That is a 1.5 hour speech !

Lynn

[woodb...@gmail.com]

I'm not keen on the title either. It's more like De-fragmenting
programming. If this goes well, we can reach out to those
who have considered C++, but chosen other languages.


Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again.
http://webEbenezer.net

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

The keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup was prefaced by a boy in drag.

I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate, and I would
not be watching any of their videos from that point forward.

My loss in C++ technical content. Will have to rely on second-hand
recounts.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[David Brown]

I know you don't read my posts, I know this is off-topic, and I know it
might provoke another ridiculous sermon. But it bothers me too much to
see prejudice left uncommented.

The man introducing the speaker has long hair. That is /all/.

Please stop being so judgemental and trying to find something to hate in
everything and everyone.

[Ian Collins]

On 28/09/2019 04:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:37:20 PM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> "CppCon 2019: Herb Sutter “De-fragmenting C++: Making Exceptions and
>> RTTI More Affordable and Usable”"
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARYP83yNAWk&t=1s
>>
>> That is a 1.5 hour speech !
>>
>> Lynn
>
> The keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup was prefaced by a boy in drag.
>
> I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate, and I would
> not be watching any of their videos from that point forward.

You really a nasty bigoted twat.

--
Ian.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On 9/27/2019 3:43 PM, Ian Collins wrote:> On 28/09/2019 04:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate, and I would
>> not be watching any of their videos from that point forward.
>

> You really a nasty bigoted .. .

If by "nasty bigoted t-word" you mean "I believe in the principles
of male and female as created by God, upheld by Jesus Christ, and
those that will endure in this world by His guidance until the end-
times, then yes I agree.

It's not being a bigot to uphold the principles God established:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1%3A27%2C+2%3A21-25%2C+5%3A1-2&version=KJV

In those few verses are heterosexuality, lifelong marriage, an
establishment of the traditional male + female family, and the
propagation of the species being through such a marriage.

God is not a bigot. He is God. He's teaching us the right way
to do things. Those who rebel against God are rebelling against
His teachings, and calling God's servants bigots.

Wise up, Ian. The day of accountability for your life is coming
hard and fast. How will you stand with such a rebellion against
God active and present in your life? It's time to repent and
seek the truth, lest you lose your soul on that day of accounta-
bility, also known as Judgment Day or the Great White Throne
Judgment.

Study God, Ian. Read the Bible seeking the truth. You WILL NOT
be disappointed in God's guidance and provision for your life,
and in the age to come. You will be disappointed by the future
your current rebellion against God does not afford you, and very
solidly does not afford you in fact.

Tick tock, people. Your lives are winding down. That final day
where you stand before God to give an account of your life is
coming. For some it will be sooner rather than later, so it is
a right course of action to take steps for that final day while
it is still called TODAY.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[red floyd]

On 9/27/2019 12:43 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 28/09/2019 04:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:

>> [his usual drivel]

> You really a nasty bigoted twat.
>

And this surprises you how?

[Ian Collins]

No one bit unfortunately, but it still annoys me given the effort
conferences go to to be safe, inclusive places.

Sorry for setting him off.

--
Ian.

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On 9/27/2019 6:51 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> Sorry for setting him off.

Read what "he" wrote, Ian. It's important to your soul.

What this world calls being "inclusive" is actually enmity
with God. "Friendship with the world is enmity with God":

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+4%3A4&version=NIV;KJV

Seek God, Ian. Let Him lead you, your life, your family,
your business, everything. It is THE right and proper way.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Christian Gollwitzer]

Am 27.09.19 um 19:30 schrieb David Brown:

> On 27/09/2019 18:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> The keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup was prefaced by a boy in drag.
>>
>> I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate

> I know you don't read my posts, I know this is off-topic, and I know it
> might provoke another ridiculous sermon.  But it bothers me too much to
> see prejudice left uncommented.
>
> The man introducing the speaker has long hair.  That is /all/.

I think he was referring to that video:

https://youtu.be/u_ij0YNkFUs?t=30

The teenage boy here wears a dress.

> Please stop being so judgemental and trying to find something to hate in
> everything and everyone.

Fully agreed. And even if one believes that God created man and woman,
there is not the slightest indication that he created dresses
exclusively for women. Dresses were created by humans, and Gods most
probably as well.

Christian

[David Brown]

On 28/09/2019 08:25, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 27.09.19 um 19:30 schrieb David Brown:
>> On 27/09/2019 18:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup was prefaced by a boy in drag.
>>>
>>> I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate
>
>> I know you don't read my posts, I know this is off-topic, and I know
>> it might provoke another ridiculous sermon.  But it bothers me too
>> much to see prejudice left uncommented.
>>
>> The man introducing the speaker has long hair.  That is /all/.
>
> I think he was referring to that video:
>
> https://youtu.be/u_ij0YNkFUs?t=30

That wasn't the video linked.

>
> The teenage boy here wears a dress.

Yes. So what? People can wear what they want, dress as they like,
within the standards considered acceptable to the people around in the
context in question. His clothes are entirely respectable - merely a
little unusual.

And if Rick thinks that is "drag" - well, I think he should probably get
out a bit more. Perhaps he should go and see a real drag show, or maybe
even /talk/ with some people who don't share his bigotry and fanaticism.
Perhaps he would learn that they are normal, friendly people just like
most others.

>
>> Please stop being so judgemental and trying to find something to hate
>> in everything and everyone.
>
> Fully agreed. And even if one believes that God created man and woman,
> there is not the slightest indication that he created dresses
> exclusively for women. Dresses were created by humans, and Gods most
> probably as well.
>

If you believe that a god created people as either male or female,
falling in strict categories for biology, appearance, sexuality,
behaviour - you have your eyes closed to reality. And if you believe
that a god is ordering you to hate and mistreat people who don't match
your blinkered black-or-white viewpoint, you have misunderstood the
message from that god.

(If you want to believe in a god that created the wide variety of people
we see around us, and that we should be as good people as we can towards
them all, then that's great.)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/28/2019 1:35 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 28/09/2019 08:25, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 27.09.19 um 19:30 schrieb David Brown:
>>> On 27/09/2019 18:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup was prefaced by a boy in drag.
>>>>
>>>> I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate
>>
>>> I know you don't read my posts, I know this is off-topic, and I know
>>> it might provoke another ridiculous sermon.  But it bothers me too
>>> much to see prejudice left uncommented.
>>>
>>> The man introducing the speaker has long hair.  That is /all/.
>>
>> I think he was referring to that video:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/u_ij0YNkFUs?t=30
>
> That wasn't the video linked.
>
>>
>> The teenage boy here wears a dress.
>
> Yes.  So what?  People can wear what they want, dress as they like,

Hey man, that kilt looks like some sort of dress... Now we must attach
the scarlet letter. It reminds me of deductive reasoning:

https://youtu.be/H9PY_3E3h2c

This part:

https://youtu.be/H9PY_3E3h2c?t=202

[...]

[Christian Gollwitzer]

Am 28.09.19 um 10:35 schrieb David Brown:

> On 28/09/2019 08:25, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 27.09.19 um 19:30 schrieb David Brown:
>>> On 27/09/2019 18:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup was prefaced by a boy in drag.
>>>>
>>>> I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate
>>
>>> I know you don't read my posts, I know this is off-topic, and I know
>>> it might provoke another ridiculous sermon.  But it bothers me too
>>> much to see prejudice left uncommented.
>>>
>>> The man introducing the speaker has long hair.  That is /all/.
>>
>> I think he was referring to that video:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/u_ij0YNkFUs?t=30
>
> That wasn't the video linked.
>

Correct, but he referred to "the keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup" (see
above) which was probably suggested by Youtube to him from the linked
one. I merely tried to supplement the missing citation.

Christian

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

Many people will consider this post "the usual drivel." And
whereas it is along the lines of what I would post regarding
our (man's) need for salvation through Jesus Christ, it is
not "drivel." There is ONE VOICE teaching you that it is
drivel, and that voice comes from the enemy of God, who is
actively at work in this world deceiving everyone, and all
who will not seek the truth will be deceived.

I advise you to go on a fact-finding mission to PROVE TO
YOURSELF if what I teach you is accurate or not. Go to the
Bible with a TRUTH-SEEKING heart and a strong desire to
learn if there really is this division in man, between the
saved and the unsaved, and if you really are on either one
side or the other.

Seek like if you knew there was gold in a field and you
were digging to find it. Uncover the things the enemy has
perverted in your knowledge in this world. Have the goal
in your heart of NOT BEING DECEIVED, so that you will come
to the truth ... because that truth WILL make you FREE.

Consider: I'm not asking you for money. I'm not asking
you to join MY cause. I'm asking you to seek THE TRUTH.
I'm asking you to investigate FOR YOURSELF with that full
truth-seeking heart.

When you do, you will find what I'm talking about, and not
because I say so, but because it's all real.

God really does exist. He really does have a purpose for
your life. He really is revealed in scripture, which all
points to His Son Jesus Christ, who really did come into
the world to take our sin away so we could be saved from
that judgment for sin, the righteous One entering in to
the corruption of this world to become that corruption in
our place, thereby taking it away from us, and setting us
free from it.

Look around you and see the corruption everywhere. Even
in your own body as you get cancer, or you need glasses,
or any other host of things.

God's Kingdom is not like that. SIN has brought about
this vile wicked world. And God came here to save us
from it.

Put your full faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Lean into
Him with all your weight. He is stable and is able to
bear it all without shaking, without flinching, without a
second thought of negativity toward you regarding for all
that you place upon His shoulders. It is His great pleasure
to set us free from sin, and bear our burdens, so that we
can be set free in this world from the weight of those bur-
dens, so that we can see the down payment of what He's given
us eternity, even while we yet remain in this world for a
time.

Read on and seek the full truth in these words:

===>

On 9/28/2019 4:51 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Hey man, that kilt looks like some sort of dress... Now we must attach
> the scarlet letter. It reminds me of deductive reasoning:
>

> [...]

The Bible teaches that a man is not to wear a woman's clothing:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A5&version=NIV;KJV

Now that is under the Law of Moses, which we are NOT under when
under the Grace of Jesus Christ, but it provides us with infor-
mation on the character and intent of God regarding us. And just
as many things in the Old Testament and Old Covenant are still
called for Christians to do in the New Covenant, each of them
conveys the intent of God regarding our lives.

IIRC, the cross-dressing male in that video was introduced and
identified himself as "Rachel."

It was only a few years ago in this country (USA) that such a
position would've been deemed a medical condition. It still is
actually in several circles, as not everyone buys into the new
political agenda of self-gendering as both being normal and a
right. It is not.

God made them male and female for a reason. It is a preface, a
preview, an example we can relate to, of what we will be (the
bride of Christ) to Jesus (our Bridegroom) in eternity, for the
Bible teaches there will be a marriage, and just as marriages
are here on Earth where all the woman has becomes the man's,
and all the man has becomes the woman's, and the two are joined
together to be one ... so it will be with us and God.

This is the promise Jesus gives us in the New Testament, in the
Bible in general, and it is the enemy of God, literally Satan
himself and his demon army, who are teaching otherwise.

Satan is a defeated foe. Anyone following after Satan's guid-
ance will share in that defeat on the Day of Judgment. What
Jesus offers us is salvation from that judgment, and the full
and complete redemption and restoration of our souls to the
rightful place in Heaven God created us to occupy.

God's goals for us are glorious beyond words. Remember that
when you look out into the blue sky and the green trees and
the sandy beaches, and remember that He made ALL of this as a
mere LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM for us. None of that STUFF matters.

What matters is YOU. And God is calling you to be a part of
His eternal Kingdom, restored to our true nature, which is not
just this physical flesh, but involves the spirit.

For those of you who have no idea what the spirit is, it's us
in another form. If you've ever seen the TV show Andromeda,
where Romy is in physical form, but she's also a hologram,
and she's also the ship, that's kind of like it wish us. We
are our soul (the ship), we are our spirit (the hologram), and
we are our body (the android).

On Star Wars, some members of council were there in physical
form. Some came through via holograms. That's like our phys-
ical and spiritual selves.

It's not the same, but it's something unsaved people can wrap
their thoughts around to kind of convey what it's like. You
can read about what Jesus teaches about the flesh and spirit
in John 3:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3&version=NIV;KJV

Heaven will not be like the Earth. God didn't create a place
for us to be where there's pain, suffering, agony, hate, etc.
Sin has brought all of that about, and the enemy of God has
done his level best to convince us this is all God's doing,
when it's really his doing.

If you read the Bible on a "fact-finding mission" with a
"truth-seeking heart," then you will uncover the TRUE nature
of the things God has in store for us, and not the lies of
the enemy taught to each of us by our society, our media,
hand-me-down tales, etc.

If you think God is anything less than being EXACTLY what
you, your family, your co-workers, your friends, your neigh-
bors, everyone needs, then you do not yet understand properly.

If there was one thing that was the best thing for you, it is
literally Jesus. He's better for you than a loving spouse.
He's better for you than a high paying job that explores your
full range of abilities and interests with grandeur. He's
more important to you than food, or water, or even air, for
in Him (in Jesus) is the ONE WAY God has provided to restore
you from sin, to save you from judgment, to give you a path
back to His Kingdom in eternity, for we are all ALREADY on
the path to Hell, even if we don't realize it yet, and it is
exactly because of sin and the cancerous deception that sin
brings, which is so pervasive it COMPLETELY DESTROYS every-
thing it touches, which is why God has isolated it into a
sole place in His creation, the place called Hell. Nothing
entering into Hell will EVER come out. It is a hard barrier
between the full-on goodness and truth of His creation, and
the full-on badness and falseness of those who embrace sin.

Stop listening to the enemy's voice about who God is. Pick
up a Bible and begin reading. Give yourself license to go
on that fact-finding mission, to seek out the truth with
real earnest zeal. Do not relent until you demand of what
God has provided for us the FULL TRUTH to answer every one
of your questions. I promise you, you will find everything
you seek written within, and not all of it will come from
words on the page, but through the spirit I mentioned above,
a pledge of earnest for our full inheritance. We will re-
ceive now, in this world, that earnest, a deposit, a type
of guarantee of what we will receive once we shed our mor-
tality, shed our corruption, and put on immortality and
incorruption.

God is real. He's loving. He's provisioning. He's given
us more than we realize, including the opportunity to COME
BACK to Him despite our guilt in sin. He doesn't want to
judge us. He wants to forgive us. But it will be one or
the other for every human soul.

-----
Be one who is saved. Do not be one who is judged. Humble
yourself before God. Acknowledge your sin, your guilt,
and ask Jesus to save you. He will, because it is His great
pleasure to receive a soul back into His Kingdom when they
come to repentance. It would be like you receiving your son
or daughter back after they stopped doing the criminal or
self-destructive thing they've been doing. To have that pre-
viously lost soul back in your life ... oh the joy! And it
is God's great pleasure to extend to us that reception back
into His Kingdom, so that His joy may abound, as well as
ours.

Consider your future. Everybody dies, but not everybody
needs to fear death. Death is the gateway between our cor-
ruption and mortality here, and the incorruption and im-
mortality there. You can read about this in Paul's writ-
ings in Ephesians and 1 Corinthians:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1%3A13-14%2C+1+Corinthians+15%3A53-55&version=NIV;KJV

There is so much information in the Bible. It's spread out
in importance, some given here, some given there, so that
the one who looks deeply into it will see it, but the one
who casually glances only at the surface will never see it.

Seek after the TRUE KNOWLEDGE of God with a discerning
heart and a focused will. Do it on purpose to learn the
truth and you will find it. That's a promise from God.
And I bear witness of that promise.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 2:25:47 AM UTC-4, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Fully agreed. And even if one believes that God created man and woman,
> there is not the slightest indication that he created dresses
> exclusively for women. Dresses were created by humans, and Gods most
> probably as well.

On the day of judgment, ignorance will not be a valid excuse,
because all of the information God has given us about His
guidance for us, and the nature of this world in sin, and
the nature of our redemption through Christ, has been given
to us.

In America, you can't pass through a city and not find more
than several churches. They are within walking distance
from probably 80-90% of the U.S. population, and within
driving distance of the rest. It's on TV. Bibles can be
ordered on Amazon.com and shipped right to your door. You
can invite your Christian neighbor over for dinner, or that
co-worker, etc.

There will be no excuses:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A5&version=NIV;KJV

KJV -- "5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth
unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

NIV -- "5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man
wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone
who does this."

Note: See my reply to Chris Thomasson for extended info
on this Old Testament Law:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c++/t899RBBgr5A/543XNA0GCgAJ

The enemy of God has deceived the entire world with his lies.
Everyone who will not pursue the truth actively will be de-
ceived by that enemy, leading to their soul's death on Judgment
Day, and their soul being cast into Hell for all eternity.

But for all who will seek the truth they will be saved.

Many will be shocked to learn after they leave this world that
it was true, that sin was real, that judgment was real, that
Hell is real, that the warnings men and women like me have
given you throughout your ENTIRE LIFE were real. It will be
too late then to be saved. It is not too late today.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+3%3A13-15&version=NIV;KJV

Do not harden your heart.
While it is called "today" seek Him.

To you, "Christian G," and the others who will read this, in-
cluding David Brown, Leigh Johnston, Scott Lurndal, among others.

Seek the truth. Don't let it fall down on you on Judgment Day.
Find it today while you can STILL be saved.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Christian Gollwitzer]

Am 28.09.19 um 14:05 schrieb rick.c...@gmail.com:

> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A5&version=NIV;KJV
>
> KJV -- "5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth
> unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
> for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
>
> NIV -- "5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man
> wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone
> who does this."

And where in the bible is the definition, what constitutes a "woman's
garment" and what "men's clothing"? This has varied over the ages and
cultures so much that this statement is simply incomplete. Which is no
wonder because it was written and edited by humans.


Christian

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 9:52:55 AM UTC-4, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 28.09.19 um 14:05 schrieb rick.c...@gmail.com:
> > https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A5&version=NIV;KJV
> >
> > KJV -- "5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth
> > unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
> > for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
> >
> > NIV -- "5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man
> > wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone
> > who does this."
>
> And where in the bible is the definition, what constitutes a "woman's
> garment" and what "men's clothing"? This has varied over the ages and
> cultures so much that this statement is simply incomplete.

If you don't know, look to history, what has been traditional in your
area, from your grandparents, parents, society at large.

God recognizes variances in societal norms. The main teaching here is
that men are to be men, and women women, and the two are not to have
any crossover.

This is reinforced by teachings against homosexuality, and even from
men being effeminate.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=NASB;KJV

It's written by men, inspired by God's Holy Spirit, which was like a
narrator inside your thoughts instructing them what to write. The
whole of scripture affirms itself despite being written by about 40
different people over 1500 years.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Bo Persson]

On 2019-09-28 at 16:34, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 9:52:55 AM UTC-4, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 28.09.19 um 14:05 schrieb rick.c...@gmail.com:
>>> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A5&version=NIV;KJV
>>>
>>> KJV -- "5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth
>>> unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
>>> for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
>>>
>>> NIV -- "5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man
>>> wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone
>>> who does this."
>>
>> And where in the bible is the definition, what constitutes a "woman's
>> garment" and what "men's clothing"? This has varied over the ages and
>> cultures so much that this statement is simply incomplete.
>
> If you don't know, look to history, what has been traditional in your
> area, from your grandparents, parents, society at large.
>
> God recognizes variances in societal norms. The main teaching here is
> that men are to be men, and women women, and the two are not to have
> any crossover.
>

Seem to me that in many popular images, Jesus himself was wearing
something that looks like a dress.

Like here:

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/was-jesus-married/

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

The Bible describes priestly attire for the tribe of Levi:

https://www.bible-history.com/tabernacle/TAB4The_Priestly_Garments.htm

It's probably why he's portrayed like that. Also Jerusalem was
under Roman rule during that time. Togas, etc.

Regardless, the teaching is based on societal norms, and not
specific garments. In addition, Christians are not under the Law
any longer, but the call remains to be separately men as men in
men's attire, women as women in women's attire, to be separate
and distinct.

You make the teaching intentionally difficult, and unnecessarily
so. It reflects one thing: The state of your heart in sin.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Manfred]

On 9/28/19 10:35 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 28/09/2019 08:25, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 27.09.19 um 19:30 schrieb David Brown:
>>> On 27/09/2019 18:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup was prefaced by a boy in drag.
>>>>
>>>> I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate
>>
>>> I know you don't read my posts, I know this is off-topic, and I know
>>> it might provoke another ridiculous sermon.  But it bothers me too
>>> much to see prejudice left uncommented.
>>>
>>> The man introducing the speaker has long hair.  That is /all/.
>>
>> I think he was referring to that video:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/u_ij0YNkFUs?t=30
>
> That wasn't the video linked.
>
>>
>> The teenage boy here wears a dress.
>
> Yes.  So what?  People can wear what they want, dress as they like,
> within the standards considered acceptable to the people around in the
> context in question.  His clothes are entirely respectable - merely a
> little unusual.

I'll have a bit of an out-of-the-choir voice here.

My question is why the boy was invited on stage.
I am open to correction, but it is possible that the boy's outfit was
the reason Jon Kalb invited him on the stage - possibly to promote a
message about minorities' inclusion (or anything else, my only point is
that whatever the reason it doesn't seem related to software development).

From this perspective, irrespective of the moderator's intentions, it
can be seen as an off-topic sketch in a software conference. In other
words, if Rick gets criticism (rightly) when he uses the audience of
this newsgroup to spread his message about the bible, maybe the action
of using an audience gathered to listen to Bjarne for a different
purpose can be seen as a stretch as well.

[snipping even further digression]

[Manfred]

On 9/28/2019 6:49 PM, Manfred wrote:
> On 9/28/19 10:35 AM, David Brown wrote:
>> On 28/09/2019 08:25, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>>> Am 27.09.19 um 19:30 schrieb David Brown:
>>>> On 27/09/2019 18:54, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The keynote with Bjarne Stroustrup was prefaced by a boy in drag.
>>>>>
>>>>> I contacted the CppCon and told them it was inappropriate
>>>
>>>> I know you don't read my posts, I know this is off-topic, and I know
>>>> it might provoke another ridiculous sermon.  But it bothers me too
>>>> much to see prejudice left uncommented.
>>>>
>>>> The man introducing the speaker has long hair.  That is /all/.
>>>
>>> I think he was referring to that video:
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/u_ij0YNkFUs?t=30
>>
>> That wasn't the video linked.
>>
>>>
>>> The teenage boy here wears a dress.
>>
>> Yes.  So what?  People can wear what they want, dress as they like,
>> within the standards considered acceptable to the people around in the
>> context in question.  His clothes are entirely respectable - merely a
>> little unusual.
>
> I'll have a bit of an out-of-the-choir voice here.
>
> My question is why the boy was invited on stage.
> I am open to correction,

And I should be.

> but it is possible that the boy's outfit was
> the reason Jon Kalb invited him on the stage - possibly to promote a
> message about minorities' inclusion (or anything else, my only point is
> that whatever the reason it doesn't seem related to software development).

Listening closer to the fragment, I realized my message was wrong.
My apologies.
[snipped]

[Keith Thompson]

And yet again, a bigoted troll has succeeded in turning this newsgroup's
attention to the irrelevant issues he cares about.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[Mr Flibble]

On 28/09/2019 12:55, rick.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> God made them male and female for a reason.

And Satan invented fossils, yes?

Will the real, bigoted, misogynist, homophobic and fucktarded Rick C.
Hodgin please fuck off.

/Flibble

--
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[Juha Nieminen]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> The teenage boy here wears a dress.
>
> Yes. So what? People can wear what they want, dress as they like,
> within the standards considered acceptable to the people around in the
> context in question. His clothes are entirely respectable - merely a
> little unusual.

The question is not what he was wearing. The question is *why* he was
chosen to appear there.

Was he chosen to appear there because he was the most competent and
apt person for that role, chosen because of his knowledge, skill and
experience, which made him the best person for that role?

Or was he chosen to appear there because of virtue-signaling, identity
politics, and an attempt at social engineering that has absolutely nothing
to do with C++ or anything?

Identity politics have absolutely nothing to do with C++. Keep politics
out of it. Especially keep politics out of it when they are artificially
shoved in just to score virtue-signaling points, and to try to participate
in this massive social engineering campaign that has been going on.

I don't care what kind of politics it is. Left, right, center, up, down.
I don't care. Keep it out of things like C++ development. They don't
belong there.

> And if Rick thinks that is "drag" - well, I think he should probably get
> out a bit more. Perhaps he should go and see a real drag show, or maybe
> even /talk/ with some people who don't share his bigotry and fanaticism.

Where are you getting this "bigotry" and "fanaticism" from?

I bet you don't even know what the word "bigotry" means. You should look
it up some time.

> If you believe that a god created people as either male or female,
> falling in strict categories for biology, appearance, sexuality,
> behaviour - you have your eyes closed to reality.

Feminist academics making assertions about biology and psychology
is not reality. It's their own fantasy that they are trying to
impose onto society and onto people, via more and more draconian
measures and legislation.

> And if you believe
> that a god is ordering you to hate and mistreat people who don't match
> your blinkered black-or-white viewpoint, you have misunderstood the
> message from that god.

Where exactly are you getting that from? "Hate" and "mistreat"? Did
you pull that from your ass?

And you are calling him bigted and fanatic.

[Juha Nieminen]

Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> And yet again, a bigoted troll has succeeded in turning this newsgroup's
> attention to the irrelevant issues he cares about.

That's what happens when conferences that have absolutely nothing to
do with identity politics, or politics of any kind, feel the need to
virtue-signal and show off their token minority people, just to show
how virtuous and progressive they are. They end up alienating people
for no good reason, even though the conference, once again, has
absolutely nothing to do with it.

They could have left their virtue-signaling out of it, and everybody
would have been just fine with it, and no controversy of any kind would
happen. But no. They had to virtue-signal. They had to show how virtuous
and progressive they are. They had to try to score virtue points, and
introduce politics into something that doesn't need it.

[Juha Nieminen]

Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No one bit unfortunately, but it still annoys me given the effort
> conferences go to to be safe, inclusive places.

"Safe"? What the fuck are you talking about? How is a C++ conference
"unsafe" for anybody? What "safety" is this that you are talking about,
and what does it have anything to do with scoring virtue-signaling points
by shoving a token "minority" person onto the stage? How does that make
anything "safe"? Are people's lives in danger if they don't shove that
person onto the stage for everybody to see and for them to feel good
about themselves?

You are using this regressive leftist neologism, a complete redefinition
of the word "safe", with a completely different meaning which has nothing
to do with its previous conventional meaning, which is malleable and
nobody can clearly define. Why? Why does everything need to be infected
by the regressive leftist poison?

C++ has absolutely nothing to do with identity politics. Why does it
have to be forcefully shoved into it?

Keep politics out of C++. It has nothing to do with it.

[David Brown]

The programming world has a big problem with its image, and often it is
seen as not being inclusive enough. The majority of programmers are
male, nerdy, and white. It does no harm to make it clear that the
programming community is happy to include people that don't match the
"programmer norm".

Of course, the /real/ minorities that should be actively encouraged at
programmers conventions are football fans - that must be the smallest
minority in the programming world, compared to their proportion in the
population at large :-)


I actually agree with you that "virtue signalling" is not a good thing
by itself - a little subtle inclusiveness is fine, but don't go
overboard with it. I don't mind the alienating here - people who feel
alienated by a guy wearing a dress can go home and few people will miss
them. But if people feel "we came to hear about C++, not about how its
fine to wear different clothes", then it has gone way too far. (Those
that think the same thing applies to this newsgroup should learn where
their "kill thread" newsreader command is.)


However, I for one don't know if this was a case of "virtue signalling".
I haven't watched the videos or investigated who this person is - so I
can't say. All I have to go on is Manfred's posts - where he first
suggested it was "virtue signally", and then suggested he had been mistaken.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

On 27/09/2019 18:30, David Brown wrote:
>
>
> The man introducing the speaker has long hair. That is /all/.
>
>

He is gay (aka "homosexual" NOT "happy" as it used be defined) so don't
get confused by it.

[seeplus]

On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 8:10:07 PM UTC+10, Juha Nieminen wrote:

> They could have left their virtue-signaling out of it, and everybody
> would have been just fine with it, and no controversy of any kind would
> happen. But no. They had to virtue-signal. They had to show how virtuous
> and progressive they are. They had to try to score virtue points, and
> introduce politics into something that doesn't need it.

Greta must have turned down the gig.

[David Brown]

On 29/09/2019 12:06, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> The teenage boy here wears a dress.
>>
>> Yes. So what? People can wear what they want, dress as they like,
>> within the standards considered acceptable to the people around in the
>> context in question. His clothes are entirely respectable - merely a
>> little unusual.
>
> The question is not what he was wearing. The question is *why* he was
> chosen to appear there.
>
> Was he chosen to appear there because he was the most competent and
> apt person for that role, chosen because of his knowledge, skill and
> experience, which made him the best person for that role?

I have been assuming he was chosen because he was appropriate for the
job, with a total disregard for what he wore.

>
> Or was he chosen to appear there because of virtue-signaling, identity
> politics, and an attempt at social engineering that has absolutely nothing
> to do with C++ or anything?
>
> Identity politics have absolutely nothing to do with C++. Keep politics
> out of it. Especially keep politics out of it when they are artificially
> shoved in just to score virtue-signaling points, and to try to participate
> in this massive social engineering campaign that has been going on.
>
> I don't care what kind of politics it is. Left, right, center, up, down.
> I don't care. Keep it out of things like C++ development. They don't
> belong there.

I don't see fighting against prejudice as political. (Some people do -
I've never understood that.) And I see it as a responsibility for
everyone.

Of course that does not mean it should be part of every context - we'd
never get anywhere if we brought all good causes up every chance we got.
Sometimes a conference on one subject might decide on a particular
cause to support - whether it is tolerance for minorities, the climate,
or whatever. But they have to be careful and avoid polarising topics
where there is a lot of disagreement (like the "freedom to carry guns"
vs. "freedom not to get shot" debates in the USA).

I don't know the context for choosing this presenter. Assuming he was
chosen for sensible reasons, I fully support his right to wear what he
wants.

>
>> And if Rick thinks that is "drag" - well, I think he should probably get
>> out a bit more. Perhaps he should go and see a real drag show, or maybe
>> even /talk/ with some people who don't share his bigotry and fanaticism.
>
> Where are you getting this "bigotry" and "fanaticism" from?
>
> I bet you don't even know what the word "bigotry" means. You should look
> it up some time.

Are you unfamiliar with Rick and his philosophies?

Boycotting a conference because you see it as focusing on the wrong
thing - supporting minorities rather than discussing C++ - is absolutely
fine. Pick the conferences, videos, etc., that interest you.

Boycotting it because a guy in it wanted to wear a dress is bigotry.
And /that/ is the reason Rick gave.

>
>> If you believe that a god created people as either male or female,
>> falling in strict categories for biology, appearance, sexuality,
>> behaviour - you have your eyes closed to reality.
>
> Feminist academics making assertions about biology and psychology
> is not reality. It's their own fantasy that they are trying to
> impose onto society and onto people, via more and more draconian
> measures and legislation.

Please tell me you are not suggesting that the fact that some people
don't fit a simple "all male" or "all female" categorisation is merely
the imaginings of feminist academics? This is not the place to discuss
details, but that is either ignorance or denialism.

(I have no idea if the person on the video is transgender, or simply
finds the dress comfortable clothes.)

>
>> And if you believe
>> that a god is ordering you to hate and mistreat people who don't match
>> your blinkered black-or-white viewpoint, you have misunderstood the
>> message from that god.
>
> Where exactly are you getting that from? "Hate" and "mistreat"? Did
> you pull that from your ass?
>
> And you are calling him bigted and fanatic.
>

Again I ask, are you familiar with Rick?

[David Brown]

On 29/09/2019 12:17, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> No one bit unfortunately, but it still annoys me given the effort
>> conferences go to to be safe, inclusive places.
>
> "Safe"? What the fuck are you talking about? How is a C++ conference
> "unsafe" for anybody? What "safety" is this that you are talking about,
> and what does it have anything to do with scoring virtue-signaling points
> by shoving a token "minority" person onto the stage? How does that make
> anything "safe"? Are people's lives in danger if they don't shove that
> person onto the stage for everybody to see and for them to feel good
> about themselves?

People's lives (and health, and freedom to live and be happy) /are/ in
danger when they are forced to hide away, and it is considered
"acceptable" to force everyone into little square moulds. Look up some
statistics about suicide rates amongst gays, transgenders, and other
minorities. When those are down to the average levels in society, you
can start talking about them being safe.

The grand aim is /not/ to "shove people onto a stage". The aim is for
it not to matter in the slightest, for no one to bat an eyelid if the
guy wants to wear a dress. /Then/ we will have safe, inclusive places.

>
> You are using this regressive leftist neologism, a complete redefinition
> of the word "safe", with a completely different meaning which has nothing
> to do with its previous conventional meaning, which is malleable and
> nobody can clearly define. Why? Why does everything need to be infected
> by the regressive leftist poison?
>
> C++ has absolutely nothing to do with identity politics. Why does it
> have to be forcefully shoved into it?
>
> Keep politics out of C++. It has nothing to do with it.
>

Politics has nothing to do with C++, agreed. Politics also has nothing
to do with letting people be themselves without others imposing their
fears or prejudice on them.

[Juha Nieminen]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> Was he chosen to appear there because he was the most competent and
>> apt person for that role, chosen because of his knowledge, skill and
>> experience, which made him the best person for that role?
>
> I have been assuming he was chosen because he was appropriate for the
> job, with a total disregard for what he wore.

Maybe. But you'll have to forgive me for having some doubts.

> I don't see fighting against prejudice as political.

It's 100% political, especially in the modern western world.
And it does not belong to C++ development.

When you introduce identity politics into a conference that has
absolutely nothing to do with it, that's a sure way to destroy
it. That's exactly what happened to the PHP Central Europe
conference, even though the organizers did absolutely nothing
wrong. (And I'm not saying this with the meaning "they did this
and this, but that's not wrong." No. They genuinely did absolutely
nothing to warrant anything. They were still destroyed by identitarian
ideology.)

As for the rest of your questions, I think I'm going to abstain.
We could have a miles-long discussion about identity politics, but
my intent is to keep them *out* of a C++ forum, not introduce them.
I'd like to keep the conversation limited to this particular C++
conference.

[David Brown]

On 29/09/2019 15:33, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> Was he chosen to appear there because he was the most competent and
>>> apt person for that role, chosen because of his knowledge, skill and
>>> experience, which made him the best person for that role?
>>
>> I have been assuming he was chosen because he was appropriate for the
>> job, with a total disregard for what he wore.
>
> Maybe. But you'll have to forgive me for having some doubts.

Since I have not followed the details of the video or conference, then I
can't be sure why he was chosen. So of course it is fair to have doubts.

>
>> I don't see fighting against prejudice as political.
>
> It's 100% political, especially in the modern western world.

I think we will get nowhere with re-statements of our positions, and a
more detailed discussion (including finding common ground on what
"political" means) is well beyond the scope of this thread!

> And it does not belong to C++ development.
>
> When you introduce identity politics into a conference that has
> absolutely nothing to do with it, that's a sure way to destroy
> it. That's exactly what happened to the PHP Central Europe
> conference, even though the organizers did absolutely nothing
> wrong. (And I'm not saying this with the meaning "they did this
> and this, but that's not wrong." No. They genuinely did absolutely
> nothing to warrant anything. They were still destroyed by identitarian
> ideology.)

I don't know that situation. I use a little PHP, but not enough for it
to interest me much, and have not come across news about any conference
from reading more general sources.

I do agree with you that it is important not to let other issues
overwhelm the point of a conference.

>
> As for the rest of your questions, I think I'm going to abstain.
> We could have a miles-long discussion about identity politics, but
> my intent is to keep them *out* of a C++ forum, not introduce them.
> I'd like to keep the conversation limited to this particular C++
> conference.
>

Fair enough.

[Mike Terry]

On 29/09/2019 13:21, David Brown wrote:
> On 29/09/2019 12:06, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> The teenage boy here wears a dress.
>>>
>>> Yes. So what? People can wear what they want, dress as they like,
>>> within the standards considered acceptable to the people around in the
>>> context in question. His clothes are entirely respectable - merely a
>>> little unusual.
>>
>> The question is not what he was wearing. The question is *why* he was
>> chosen to appear there.
>>
>> Was he chosen to appear there because he was the most competent and
>> apt person for that role, chosen because of his knowledge, skill and
>> experience, which made him the best person for that role?
>
> I have been assuming he was chosen because he was appropriate for the
> job, with a total disregard for what he wore.
>

If you watch the video, you'll see that she (her name is "April") was
chosen because she was one of the two high-school students registered
for the conference. (Of course, there could be other unspoken
motivations, but on face value I'd say that was a nice gesture...)

Mike.

[Keith Thompson]

Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> writes:
[...]

> Keep politics out of C++. It has nothing to do with it.

Keep politics out of comp.lang.c++. Stop posting about it here.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 9/29/2019 12:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Juha Nieminen <nos...@thanks.invalid> writes:
> [...]
>> Keep politics out of C++. It has nothing to do with it.
>
> Keep politics out of comp.lang.c++. Stop posting about it here.

Keep trans-genderism out of CppConn. Stop including those scenes
in the videos.

It's been mentioned recently that CppCon had nothing to do with
the incident where "April" was introducing Bjarne Stroustrup. I'm
sorry, but that position is flatly wrong. CppCon is culpable.
They have editorial control over the content on their channel, and
they chose to publish that video as is, rather than demanding it
by edited to remove that introduction, and even maybe just putting
up a slide with the introduction information and then showing Mr.
Stroustup.

This world is changing. People are going crazy in every direction
and in every possible way. Morality, decency, a faith in God not
just spoken about in church but lived in one's life, these voices
need to stand up and begin shouting their voice over the cries of
the obscene and vulgar miscreants who are taking over our societies,
our politics, our businesses.

They are the ones Paul warned about in the end-most times:


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A1-5&version=NIV;KJV

1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last
days.
2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money,
boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents,
ungrateful, unholy,
3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control,
brutal, not lovers of the good,
4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than
lovers of God—
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power.
==> Have nothing to do with such people.

Such people are self-condemned in their sin and the full-on full-
throttle application of their love of sin in their life. Paul is
teaching us that we are to stand up for the truth even when every-
one around is is embracing falseness.

Our eyes must be kept focused on Jesus, not on the things of the
world. He hasn't changed. He isn't move lenient in His final
judgment. The letter of the Law still stands, and those who are
saved are saved by grace, not by merit, not by personal accomp-
lishment, not by self-achievement or skill. It is by Him agreeing
to take on our sin and setting us free. It is His free gift to
us, one that is undeserved, unmerited, and comes only when we are
drawn from within to Him repenting, asking forgiveness.

Such people (born again believers in Jesus Christ) must elevate
their voices and teach the people around them that they're being
deceived into Hellfire by an enemy who is preying upon their love
of personal sin. Their desire for worldliness and self, rather
than of a love for God first, poured out into all areas of your
life as a love for your fellow man and a teaching of His ways to
them, so that they too can be saved.

Have nothing to do with the ways of this world and the people
who fully embrace them, save the interaction required to be there
for them as a role model, in teaching and outreach, in love and
guidance, in the things a parent would do to their wayward child,
but do not follow after their sin ever.

-----
The times are changing. But God has not changed. Stick with God
and let the swift currents of self-destruction sweep everyone
else away. You stay anchored to the immovable rock that is Jesus
Christ.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Frederick Gotham]

On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 12:55:24 PM UTC+1, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:

> When you do, you will find what I'm talking about, and not
> because I say so, but because it's all real.

Rick, are you doing anything in December from 20th til 30th?

[rick.c...@gmail.com]

Private inquiries can be asked and addressed in email.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Frederick Gotham]

I propose to you that we discuss this publicly in the midst of the disbelievers.

[David Brown]

I suspect you'll find the disbelievers will be happier for you to
discuss private inquiries by email.

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> spake the secret code
<qmq268$m5l$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:

>The programming world has a big problem with its image, and often it is
>seen as not being inclusive enough.

The programming community is as inclusive as it needs to be in that
it doesn't exclude anyone. You got the skills and the motivation
and you're in. It's as simple as that. It has always been this way.
Maybe in the deep south during the Jim Crow era, you would be refused
a job as a programmer in a "data center", but everyone has access to
computers and programming has never been easier and the Jim Crow era
is a distant memory to anyone who was alive at the time.

At this point, the barrier is one of individual motivation and
interest and nothing more.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/30/2019 12:38 PM, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> spake the secret code
> <qmq268$m5l$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:
>
>> The programming world has a big problem with its image, and often it is
>> seen as not being inclusive enough.
>
> The programming community is as inclusive as it needs to be in that
> it doesn't exclude anyone.

It language itself is 100% innocent. Anybody can choose to learn it. The
language is fine with that.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/30/2019 1:38 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/30/2019 12:38 PM, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>
>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> spake the secret code
>> <qmq268$m5l$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:
>>
>>> The programming world has a big problem with its image, and often it is
>>> seen as not being inclusive enough.
>>
>> The programming community is as inclusive as it needs to be in that
>> it doesn't exclude anyone.
>
> It language itself is 100% innocent. Anybody can choose to learn it. The
> language is fine with that.

Actually, every language is innocent. How many of them say to a person
thinking about using it: "Well, you must fill out the following forms
before you can program using myself.". None.

[David Brown]

On 30/09/2019 21:38, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> spake the secret code
> <qmq268$m5l$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:
>
>> The programming world has a big problem with its image, and often it is
>> seen as not being inclusive enough.
>
> The programming community is as inclusive as it needs to be in that
> it doesn't exclude anyone. You got the skills and the motivation
> and you're in. It's as simple as that.

It is a slightly odd situation. Individual programmers are, mostly,
inclusive in that sense. There are a few who mistreat others from
prejudice (I've seen it occasionally in c.l.c and c.l.c++, but only
rarely). Basically, most programmers are simply not particularly
interested in others' appearances, personal life, etc. - programmers are
rarely the most social of people, and they are relatively immune to the
social pressures that are often behind prejudice.

However, when someone looks from the outside at a community of
programmers, there is a strong homogeneity about it - the solid majority
will be white males, for example. (Obviously the dominant racial
background will be different outside of North America, Europe and
Australasia, but the gender dominance will not.) This is a hard barrier
to entry for people who don't fit the programmer norm. If a young woman
wants to study programming at university, she will be faced with "Why do
you want to be a programmer? It's a guy thing - for nerds who live in
their parent's basement". Other programmers either don't care, or are
happy to see a bit of variety in their ranks.

That is why I say that the programming world has image problems - /not/
that programmers themselves are not inclusive people.

> It has always been this way.
> Maybe in the deep south during the Jim Crow era, you would be refused
> a job as a programmer in a "data center", but everyone has access to
> computers and programming has never been easier and the Jim Crow era
> is a distant memory to anyone who was alive at the time.
>
> At this point, the barrier is one of individual motivation and
> interest and nothing more.
>

There is no barrier that we, the programmers themselves, have erected.
Yet there is still a barrier.

(You see similar barriers in many other fields.)

[Öö Tiib]

I see plenty of female programmers here, in my previous team there was
3. And on the other hand is unlikely that schoolboy who wears dress
can change gender-related stereotypes in calcificated brains of
university teachers.

[David Brown]

The world progresses (at least sometimes!).

> And on the other hand is unlikely that schoolboy who wears dress
> can change gender-related stereotypes in calcificated brains of
> university teachers.
>

True. But it might inspire other "differently normal" people that
/they/ don't have to conform to stereotypes. I don't expect it to make
a big difference, but little steps add up over time.

[Manfred]

On 10/1/2019 9:20 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 30/09/2019 21:38, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>
>> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> spake the secret code
>> <qmq268$m5l$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:
>>
>>> The programming world has a big problem with its image, and often it is
>>> seen as not being inclusive enough.
>>
>> The programming community is as inclusive as it needs to be in that
>> it doesn't exclude anyone. You got the skills and the motivation
>> and you're in. It's as simple as that.
>
> It is a slightly odd situation. Individual programmers are, mostly,
> inclusive in that sense. There are a few who mistreat others from
> prejudice (I've seen it occasionally in c.l.c and c.l.c++, but only
> rarely). Basically, most programmers are simply not particularly
> interested in others' appearances, personal life, etc. - programmers are
> rarely the most social of people, and they are relatively immune to the
> social pressures that are often behind prejudice.

This part of the story.

>
> However, when someone looks from the outside at a community of
> programmers, there is a strong homogeneity about it - the solid majority
> will be white males, for example. (Obviously the dominant racial
> background will be different outside of North America, Europe and
> Australasia, but the gender dominance will not.) This is a hard barrier
> to entry for people who don't fit the programmer norm.

It is true that the majority may be male, but

If a young woman
> wants to study programming at university, she will be faced with "Why do
> you want to be a programmer? It's a guy thing - for nerds who live in
> their parent's basement".

This is where I disagree. I don't think it is realistic.
It is not even realistic any more in jobs like car repairing, metal
industry or similar stereotypes, much less in a young job market as SW
development.
I agree with the opinion of Richard on this point.

Other programmers either don't care, or are
> happy to see a bit of variety in their ranks.
>
> That is why I say that the programming world has image problems - /not/
> that programmers themselves are not inclusive people.
>
>> It has always been this way.
>> Maybe in the deep south during the Jim Crow era, you would be refused
>> a job as a programmer in a "data center", but everyone has access to
>> computers and programming has never been easier and the Jim Crow era
>> is a distant memory to anyone who was alive at the time.
>>
>> At this point, the barrier is one of individual motivation and
>> interest and nothing more.

This is where I agree.

>>
>
> There is no barrier that we, the programmers themselves, have erected.
> Yet there is still a barrier.

It is a matter of personal interest and motivation, it is not a barrier.

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Tue, 2019-10-01, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 10:20:29 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:

...

>> That is why I say that the programming world has image problems - /not/
>> that programmers themselves are not inclusive people.
>
> I see plenty of female programmers here, in my previous team there was
> 3.

I see almost none here. Some female testers, yes; many women leading
teams, working with requirements and so on. But almost no
programmers.

I also have met no openly gay or transgender programmers.

And yet the programmers I've met are a weird and interesting bunch of people
who don't match any particular stereotype.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Scott Lurndal]

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> writes:
>On Tue, 2019-10-01, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 10:20:29 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
>...
>>> That is why I say that the programming world has image problems - /not/
>>> that programmers themselves are not inclusive people.
>>
>> I see plenty of female programmers here, in my previous team there was
>> 3.
>
>I see almost none here. Some female testers, yes; many women leading
>teams, working with requirements and so on. But almost no
>programmers.

I've seen the programmer ratio change a lot over the last forty years. In the early 80's,
it was about 50/50 (at least at the Burroughs mainframe California
operations); including at the first level of management in the programming
activity. The ratio was much lower in the hardware engineering (processor
and peripheral design) groups.

Now, the ratio significantly favors males even in programming, and it has for
a couple of decades.

[Juha Nieminen]

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-01, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 10:20:29 UTC+3, David Brown wrote:
> ...
>>> That is why I say that the programming world has image problems - /not/
>>> that programmers themselves are not inclusive people.
>>
>> I see plenty of female programmers here, in my previous team there was
>> 3.
>
> I see almost none here. Some female testers, yes; many women leading
> teams, working with requirements and so on. But almost no
> programmers.

It should be completely inconsequential how many female (or any other
inconsequential characteristic you may choose) programmers there may
or may not be.

People should be treated as individuals, each with their own unique
talents, experience, knowledge, opinions, qualifications and flaws.
We should form an opinion of a person, or a group of people, only
when we get to know them. We should not form prejudicial opinions
about people based solely on inconsequential external characteristics.
It shouldn't matter what those external characteristics should be.

I consider sentiments like "we need more female programmers" to be
prejudicial and detrimental. People should be treated as individuals,
not as members of some demographic group, like sex or race. When someone
says "we need more female programmers", they are already categorizing
people into slots based in characteristics that should be completely
irrelevant and inconsequential when it comes to the subject in question
(ie. programming in this case).

People should be treated equally, with no discrimination nor preferential
treatmet. People should not be encouraged into a particular hobby or
professional career because of what they are (eg. "female"). All people
should be taught the same things and given the same opportunities, and
allowed to make their own choices about their own lives, hobbies and
careers based on their own interests and talents. People should have no
business in coaxing other people into a particular path, especially if
that coaxing is done for some identity politics reasons.

So, even if there are significantly more male programmers than there
are female ones, my response to that is: So what? Who cares? People
should be free to choose their own hobbies and their own careers.
I don't really care if more males choose programming than females.
It's their choice. Let people make their choice. Stop looking at
people's external characteristics, and start looking at them as that:
People. Unique individuals, not just as members of some particular
group.

A lot of harm is done by trying to coax people into career paths that they
wouldn't have chosen by themselves. It leads to dropping out of schools,
and unhappy lives working on a field they aren't necessarily so interested
in.

[Jorgen Grahn]

Look at it this way: a lack of women in programming is a clear sign
that we're missing out on talented programmers: people who would be
good at it and who would enjoy it.

[snip]

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> spake the secret code
<slrnqpppuf.c...@frailea.sa.invalid> thusly:

>Look at it this way: a lack of women in programming is a clear sign
>that we're missing out on talented programmers: people who would be
>good at it and who would enjoy it.

What evidence do you have that:
a) we're missing out on talented programmers
b) they would be people that are good at it
c) they are people who would enjoy it

These all seem to be suppositions and not facts.

a) We can't know that we're missing out on talented programmers unless
they already demonstrated that they were talented programmers and
decided to stop programming for some reason. If they decided to stop,
then we're not missing out on them unless you plan on forcing them to
return to programming.

b) We can't know that they would be good at it until they try.

c) We can't presume to know their internal mental likes and dislikes
better than them -- this is the path of hubris. Instead, we can only
ask them after they have tried it if they enjoyed it. Until they try
and tell us whether they like it or not, it is only supposition.

[Juha Nieminen]

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> Look at it this way: a lack of women in programming is a clear sign
> that we're missing out on talented programmers: people who would be
> good at it and who would enjoy it.

On what do you base this opinion on?

If, for whatever reason, women on average are less interested in computer
programming than men, and this is the cause for there being more male
programmers, why would inducing women to choose a career path they are not
interested in make them "be good at and and enjoy it"?

Somehow I get the feeling that you subscribe to the "tabula rasa", or
"blank slate" theory. In other words, that there are exactly zero
differences between the average man and the average woman, that they
have no innate characteristics (eg. in personality, personal interests
and talents) and that the only and sole reason for any differences is
because society teachest them to be different. Thus it would simply be
a question of "teaching women to enjoy programming" to make them enjoy
programming and be interested in it and be good at it, as if people's
personalities and interests were malleable and completely up to whatever
society teaches them and wants them to be.

Not only does this idea go against all evidence and studies on the
subject, in fact I find it insulting. It considers people to be
mindless robots which can be programmed to be whatever we want them
to be. Teach them thing X, and they will automatically be interested
in thing X and become good at it. Teach them thing Y, and likewise
they will become interested in thing Y and become good at it. Like
programmable robots with no agency and innate personalities and
characteristics.

Treat everybody equally, teach everybody the same things, and give
everybody the same opportunities to choose their preferred career
paths, and allow them to choose whatever they like and want. Don't
try to coax people into a particular career path just because you
think "we need more people with inconsequential characteristic X
in this career path". Treat people as people, not as robots.

[David Brown]

On 09/10/2019 09:02, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> Look at it this way: a lack of women in programming is a clear sign
>> that we're missing out on talented programmers: people who would be
>> good at it and who would enjoy it.
>
> On what do you base this opinion on?
>
> If, for whatever reason, women on average are less interested in computer
> programming than men, and this is the cause for there being more male
> programmers, why would inducing women to choose a career path they are not
> interested in make them "be good at and and enjoy it"?
>

I am quite happy with the idea of getting the best people (in terms of
ability, personal enjoyment, etc.) for jobs - without regard to gender,
age, or anything else. And I believe it is fine to say that some
classifications of people are, on average, going to be better suited for
a particular task than others. But you have to keep in mind that this
is only on average, and does not apply to individuals.

However, there is a very real risk that people who have the potential to
be good at a task, don't get involved in it as a result of these average
biases. It might be that they see the bias and underrate themselves
because of it, or maybe others underrate them. It may be an active
choice - they don't want to be in a minority situation. There can be
many reasons.

If I am screening candidates for a programming job, I am not going to
give someone a higher rating because they are a woman, or old, or have
two heads, or whatever - I rate them based on how I think they can do
the job. But I think there is a problem that there are people who
/could/ have been right for the job, but never got to that point because
they are a women, old, or have two heads. (I think this effect is less
than it used to be - we are moving in the right direction.)

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Wed, 2019-10-09, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> Look at it this way: a lack of women in programming is a clear sign
>> that we're missing out on talented programmers: people who would be
>> good at it and who would enjoy it.
>
> On what do you base this opinion on?
>
> If, for whatever reason, women on average are less interested in computer
> programming than men, and this is the cause for there being more male
> programmers, why would inducing women to choose a career path they are not
> interested in make them "be good at and and enjoy it"?

I never suggested that. I have no idea how we should get the right
programmers in the future (apart from focusing more on talent and less
on formal education).

> Somehow I get the feeling that you subscribe to the "tabula rasa", or
> "blank slate" theory.

I don't. But I don't subscribe to the theory that our society is
ideal and we shouldn't try to change anything.

[snip a fairly large strawman]

[Juha Nieminen]

David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> If I am screening candidates for a programming job, I am not going to
> give someone a higher rating because they are a woman, or old, or have
> two heads, or whatever - I rate them based on how I think they can do
> the job. But I think there is a problem that there are people who
> /could/ have been right for the job, but never got to that point because
> they are a women, old, or have two heads. (I think this effect is less
> than it used to be - we are moving in the right direction.)

It can be an interesting discussion to have whether in our modern society
there exist people who would have been talented and interested in a
particular hobby or career path, but never got to even try it because of,
for example, personal prejudice based on misinformation, because of never
having been presented information on that subject, or having been
inadvertently or deliberately discouraged from even pursuing such a path
by misinformed and prejudiced people.

That's the only explanation given and accepted by the modern feminist
doctrine, but I don't think it's that simple. There may be some cases,
even to this day, of that happening, but I'm not so sure of how much
it happens, or whether it's even a majority of such cases.

However, my problem is not really with that discussion. My main problem
is that in the modern world the steps taken to try to rectify that
problem (even assuming it's real and accurate) have gone in many ways
way, way too far. These steps have only escalated more and more in
the past few decades, at an ever-accelerating rate.

The discrimination in enrollment that universities like Harvard engage
in (where they require higher scores from Asians than from white people,
and from white people than from Hispanics, for instance, which I
consider astonisingly egregious and racist) is but the *mildest*
example of this.

The example I mentioned before, about the PHP Central Europe conference
not just being cancelled, but terminated completely and forever,
because some random person (who wasn't even attending) complained about
the speakers being "old white men" or something like that, is especially
egregious. There was literally zero discrimination or preferential
treatment by the organizers, and they did absolutely nothing wrong,
and many of the would-be speakers who bailed out because of that tweet
even outright admitted that, yet they still bailed out, and the entire
conference had to be terminated because of lack of attendance. Because
of a completely ridiculous nontroversy started by some random person
completely unaffiliated with the conference.

When you start introducing modern identity politics into something like
this, that's a sure way to introduce discontent, infighting, division
and eventually destruction, into something that has absolutely nothing
to do with politics, identity or otherwise. And it won't be the alleged
"sexists" and "misogynists" who will be destroying it. It will be the
people who classify themselves as feminists.

So the exact moment that I see identity politics being shoved into something
that has absolutely nothing to do with it, like a C++ conference, that's
a huge warning sign for me. It predicts destruction.

Just wait and see how long it takes before prominent figures in the C++
community start being accused of all kinds of things, and the purge
starts. You'll see.

[James Kuyper]

On 10/9/19 3:02 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> Look at it this way: a lack of women in programming is a clear sign
>> that we're missing out on talented programmers: people who would be
>> good at it and who would enjoy it.
>
> On what do you base this opinion on?
>
> If, for whatever reason, women on average are less interested in computer
> programming than men, and this is the cause for there being more male
> programmers, why would inducing women to choose a career path they are not
> interested in make them "be good at and and enjoy it"?
>
> Somehow I get the feeling that you subscribe to the "tabula rasa", or
> "blank slate" theory. In other words, that there are exactly zero
> differences between the average man and the average woman,

I doubt that he subscribes to any such ridiculous theory. A much more
plausible one would suffice to justify his comments. For instance, the
theory that there are some differences between the average man and the
average woman, but that many aspects of our society conspire to
discourage women from pursuing traditionally male roles (and vice
versa), even if the woman is interested in doing so, and is sufficiently
competent to compete for such a role, if she hadn't been discouraged
from doing so.
It can be difficult to measure the severity of such discouragements, or
even to prove that they exist. However, that doesn't mean that they
don't exist.

[David Brown]

On 09/10/2019 15:57, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> If I am screening candidates for a programming job, I am not going to
>> give someone a higher rating because they are a woman, or old, or have
>> two heads, or whatever - I rate them based on how I think they can do
>> the job. But I think there is a problem that there are people who
>> /could/ have been right for the job, but never got to that point because
>> they are a women, old, or have two heads. (I think this effect is less
>> than it used to be - we are moving in the right direction.)
>
> It can be an interesting discussion to have whether in our modern society
> there exist people who would have been talented and interested in a
> particular hobby or career path, but never got to even try it because of,
> for example, personal prejudice based on misinformation, because of never
> having been presented information on that subject, or having been
> inadvertently or deliberately discouraged from even pursuing such a path
> by misinformed and prejudiced people.
>
> That's the only explanation given and accepted by the modern feminist
> doctrine, but I don't think it's that simple. There may be some cases,
> even to this day, of that happening, but I'm not so sure of how much
> it happens, or whether it's even a majority of such cases.
>

I can't answer that. But I agree that it is a relevant question.

There are lots of differences between people. Some are genetic, some
are from upbringing, some are due to preferences of the people, some are
due to influences from others, some are luck of where you are born and
who your parents are, and so on. Some give obvious advantages or
disadvantages for different tasks - being rather short, it was never
likely that I'd be a good competitive sportsman. Others may be less
obvious, or less known (especially when one means "proven
scientifically" rather than "commonly accepted bias"), or less socially
acceptable.

>
> So the exact moment that I see identity politics being shoved into something
> that has absolutely nothing to do with it, like a C++ conference, that's
> a huge warning sign for me. It predicts destruction.

Again, I am not convinced this is "politics" - but again, I don't think
it is a word that is very clearly defined.

I am not keen on the idea of forcing some sort of equality - I don't
think you improve the average ability of a traditionally male-dominated
profession by pushing in more women, or that you improve a traditionally
female-dominated profession by pushing in more men. But I /do/ think
there are plenty of situations where a traditionally minority group
feels unwelcome or - equally bad, in a way - overly welcome (such as
being treated specially as the only woman in the group, or only man).
And this is bad for that group or profession - it hinders the selection
based purely on suitability for the task.

I don't know a good solution for getting from that situation to one
where no one (either in the group, or outside it) cares about whether a
programmer is male or female, or any other non-relevant aspect of
people. One possible way is to use quotas or positive biases as a
temporary measure, to counter any negative biases, until the mixed group
is established as "normal" - then the active bias can be gradually
removed as unnecessary.

But whether that is the right approach or not - and if so, where and how
much positive bias should be used - I have no idea. I like programming
- I can see if something is a 0 or a 1. It is much simpler than
psychology, sociology, or politics.

>
> Just wait and see how long it takes before prominent figures in the C++
> community start being accused of all kinds of things, and the purge
> starts. You'll see.
>

Why should the C++ world miss out on the fun? That would not be fair,
and this is all about equality.

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

James Kuyper <james...@alumni.caltech.edu> spake the secret code
<qnkt7s$jlu$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:

>[...] but that many aspects of our society *conspire* to

>discourage women from pursuing traditionally male roles (and vice
>versa), even if the woman is interested in doing so, and is sufficiently
>competent to compete for such a role, if she hadn't been discouraged
>from doing so.

[Emphasis added]

This constantly comes up about women being "discouraged" to enter into
STEM fields. I'm an old fart now and you might have considered that
"back in the day" women would have been discouraged from STEM fields, but
even 40 years ago this was not the case and it is certainly not the
case now.

The more plausible theory is not that there is some kind of
"conspiracy" that discourages or prevents women from entering STEM
positions, but that they simply don't choose those careers. It isn't
interesting to women generally and they don't pursue those careers.
Nothing is keeping them out, nothing is discouraging them, and in fact
it is MASSIVELY the other way with women constantly being encouraged
to enter STEM fields and constantly being "empowered" to enter
programming fields. .....and yet, they still don't. I think it's
time to acknowledge that women, as a general statement, simply don't
pick these fields because they aren't that interested in them.

As long as people have the freedom to choose their career paths that
best suit their own tastes, there are always going to be imbalances.

[Mr Flibble]

So you use the words "as a general statement" to hopefully qualify the
following statement as not being sexist. Sorry mate but it doesn't wash.

/Flibble

--
"Snakes didn't evolve, instead talking snakes with legs changed into
snakes." - Rick C. Hodgin

“You won’t burn in hell. But be nice anyway.” – Ricky Gervais

“I see Atheists are fighting and killing each other again, over who
doesn’t believe in any God the most. Oh, no..wait.. that never happens.” –
Ricky Gervais

"Suppose it's all true, and you walk up to the pearly gates, and are
confronted by God," Bryne asked on his show The Meaning of Life. "What
will Stephen Fry say to him, her, or it?"
"I'd say, bone cancer in children? What's that about?" Fry replied.
"How dare you? How dare you create a world to which there is such misery
that is not our fault. It's not right, it's utterly, utterly evil."
"Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a
world that is so full of injustice and pain. That's what I would say."

[Juha Nieminen]

Richard <legaliz...@mail.xmission.com> wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
> James Kuyper <james...@alumni.caltech.edu> spake the secret code
> <qnkt7s$jlu$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:
>
>>[...] but that many aspects of our society *conspire* to
>>discourage women from pursuing traditionally male roles (and vice
>>versa), even if the woman is interested in doing so, and is sufficiently
>>competent to compete for such a role, if she hadn't been discouraged
>>from doing so.
>
> [Emphasis added]
>
> This constantly comes up about women being "discouraged" to enter into
> STEM fields. I'm an old fart now and you might have considered that
> "back in the day" women would have been discouraged from STEM fields, but
> even 40 years ago this was not the case and it is certainly not the
> case now.

It's especially ludicrous to claim that there's some kind of
"conspiracy" to keep women out of STEM given the fact that in
many universities (perhaps even the majority of them, especially
in certain countries) female students in STEM fields have actually
become the sizeable *majority*. I believe that in certain universities
the numbers go as high as 60% or more.

Yet, still, the number of women *working* in STEM fields remains the
minority. Why is that?

I think that the answer lies in the dropout rates in those universities
in those STEM courses. The explanation is rather simple: When you
induce people to take advanced courses that they aren't really
interested in, they will get quickly disinterested and bored of it,
and will start failing exams and dropping out.

In many universities many STEM departments are suffering because of
high dropout rates, which lowers their yearly budgets. And the reason
is this massive campaign to get disinterested people into their courses.