|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 10:08 PM EDT |
I really don't agree--anybody of any sex can easily find that kind of thing
offensive. Sure, it may go over well in the locker room or fraternity house or
anywhere else that antisocial behavior is deliberately inculcated -- but in
public it's offensive, and even frats or jocks know than to talk that way around
civilized folk.
As to the programming oversight, proprietary software houses just don't do
business like the free software community. In a PSH, so long as code seems to
work, no manager is going to look at it. In fact, even if code doesn't seem to
work, the manager's first impulse is to see if there is another angle from which
it does seem to work. This isn't an indictment of Microsoft management--that
way.
However, it is an indictment of the Microsoft culture, which is shaped by
Microsoft management--and THAT is almost certainly deliberate.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT |
I don't know what to say except that 1. What is important to some of us is that
it is not new. The function name doesn't do anything to make the source code
more or less offensive to some people -- and this has been mentioned in tech
journals over more than a decade. If you care paragraph 7 in this link
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/50928/dealing-with-profanity-in-s
ource-code is a recent mention of it. But if you don't I'm keeping this plain
text any how. and 2. that "rap song" in Norway suggests that yes,
Microsoft might employ people who would do or approve this because they saw
nothing wrong with this. I do believe there is a lot of incompetence there.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|