In defence of Douglas Crockford • Hacker News Board

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#71

Post by trgn » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:10 AM UTC

robert_tweed wrote: post #20

I have to wonder if this was a real complaint or if it was done to highlight the obvious problem here, a bit like the guy who patented a "Method of exercising a cat". I mean, if you're going to ban Douglas Crockford from your conference it should at least be for his stated prejudice against comments in data-interchange formats. Not vague allegations that may damage his personal and professional reputation, to which h…

Indeed, his aversion for comments in data-exchange formats is much more grounds for excommunication. He's also a code-style nazi. And sjeesh, his hangups on the keywords 'new' and 'class', yes, we know, Javascript is not Java, but they're just shorthand dude, what's in a name and such, get over it. Or the deranged second half of "The Good Parts", where he earnestly assumes a linter implementation is a good introduction to a programming language. And stop already with shoving all those functional programming paradigms down JS coders throats; you're goading us on to write inscrutable, nested C-syntax vomit, without having any of the advantages of a real functional language, like you know, type safety, strict compilers, decent performance. He's both Javascript's best friend and worst enemy.

I'm joking of course. The Good Parts is amazing, and JSON is amazing. The attendees of nodevember will miss out on an amazing speaker too.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#72

Post by x0x0 » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:10 AM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #40

My thoughts: Maybe someone can tell me what's offensive about the first comment. It seems to be poking fun at programmer machismo. The second quote is more problematic. I'm firmly of the opinion that it is not slut-shaming because it presented both promiscuity and commitment in a positive light. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable for a conference to not want sexual metaphors in presentations. The whole "he…

In their code of conduct, the conference states, in part:

   Be kind to others. Do not insult or put down other attendees.

Crockford appears not to be a good match, even on just abrasiveness grounds alone. Though it would have been better to determine that before inviting him.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#73

Post by threeseed » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

robert_tweed wrote: post #20

I have to wonder if this was a real complaint or if it was done to highlight the obvious problem here, a bit like the guy who patented a "Method of exercising a cat". I mean, if you're going to ban Douglas Crockford from your conference it should at least be for his stated prejudice against comments in data-interchange formats. Not vague allegations that may damage his personal and professional reputation, to which h…

> If he actually did something wrong, take him to court and let the facts be decided in law. Otherwise, he's innocent and should be treated as such.

This is hilariously ridiculous. Being unprofessional, uncivilised or objectionable is not illegal. In fact the majority of reasons for someone to be fired do not involve breaches of the law. And even if it was illegal conduct e.g. sexual harassment the onus is on the accuser to have enough evidence to convict. Which is not always the case.

And no he doesn't have a libel case against the organisers.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#74

Post by unimpressive » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #65

throwway1111 wrote: post #60

This is happening in all parts of society. So-called "social justice warriors" and parts of the liberal left have sprung up that are very hostile to free speech and seek to destroy and silence anyone whom they oppose. Unfortunately, they have the full support of not only college administrations, but increasingly HR departments as they ascend into the workforce, and PR departments as they air their grievances over soc…

Somewhat related: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

Unrelated to the general tone of the thread but:

My biggest problem with this Taleb piece is that it doesn't really take into account the probability of success from a particular intolerant minority. In practice there's a kind of signal-strength effect where the further up the chain you go the less effective any one person becomes. Once you factor that into the model Taleb's argument falls apart.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#75

Post by cgcardona » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:16 AM UTC

oldmanjay wrote: post #50

nopit wrote: post #3

Why is crybullying so rampant in the tech community?

Because there is a lot of money and power, which attracts politics, of which "crybullying" is a tactical maneuver. Also, it's a terrible word in an aesthetic sense. People don't try to bring much elegance to neologisms these days. Such a pity.

I'm generally interested in why you think it's a terrible word in the aesthetic sense? thx.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#76

Post by rand_r » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:28 AM UTC

inopinatus wrote: post #59

"as long as he gives a good talk/presentation" Given the content of your first remark, I'm strongly inclined to suspect this use of the explicitly masculine pronoun is first-degree trolling. This serves as a counterexample to your point, because as statements go, it would be simply be factually (rather than politically) correct to have said "they" rather than "he", unless you really do hold an expectation that all co…

Using the male pronoun by default is simply common practice in English, dating back at least hundreds of years. I wouldn't read into it.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#77

Post by laser » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:29 AM UTC

Given information publicly available this seems infuriatingly ridiculous, but Nodevember's official statement in response seems quite reasonable: http://nodevember.org/statement.html

The theories here about sociopaths attempting to exert control are quite exotic and interesting, though :P

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#78

Post by unimpressive » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:31 AM UTC

rand_r wrote: post #76

inopinatus wrote: post #59

"as long as he gives a good talk/presentation" Given the content of your first remark, I'm strongly inclined to suspect this use of the explicitly masculine pronoun is first-degree trolling. This serves as a counterexample to your point, because as statements go, it would be simply be factually (rather than politically) correct to have said "they" rather than "he", unless you really do hold an expectation that all co…

Using the male pronoun by default is simply common practice in English, dating back at least hundreds of years. I wouldn't read into it.

I notice a fairly common tactic for trying to change norms is to pretend that the norms aren't norms and then aggressively shame people for doing a normal thing.

This leads to a toxic atmosphere where people can't be secure in their words, social reality keeps being pulled out from under their feet.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#79

Post by eli » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:31 AM UTC

Tehnix wrote: post #29

I generally feel like there's a kneejerk reaction from people (especially in the tech community) to be "PC compliant", at the level where you almost can't have any discourse because it's such a minefield (can't imagine a rational person whoms first intepretation of the tweets is "that's sexist" to be pleasant having a conversation with). I almost feel in the minority (or just a silent one?), but I honestly don't care…

I feel there's a knee jerk reaction from people in the tech community to minimize very legitimate concerns about bias and about making people feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.

I think it's easy to look past someone's personal preferences and outrageous comments when you're already part of the club. But respect that that isn't everyone's experience.

Re: In defence of Douglas Crockford

#80

Post by hobs » Sun, Sep 04, 2016, 5:33 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #23

whorleater wrote: post #12

Ignoring the fact this discussion about this, and this culture as a whole, is a minefield to navigate, it's important to note that Douglas Crockford can definitely be abrasive [1]. The issue at hand is that whether this abrasiveness is a bad thing, when compared to the contributions he's made and whether it leads to constructive discussions. The javascript developer who took offense (Kas?) definitely seems to have ta…

People and organizations can be justified in shunning Crockford's allegedly level of abrasiveness, so I don't agree that Kas took it too far in opining that Crockford, by Kas's standards, is a jerk (I do, however, disagree with the purported evidence of Crockford's "slut-shaming). My tolerance for what is jerk-like behavior is probably not a good one, and I think I've definitely made people feel unwelcome at times, e…

If you want to post on the net that someone is a jerk in your professional forum, you don't NEED evidence, but if you offer it and its complete flim-flam then we all assume you are an idiot.

If someone has to be so careful as to not use normal network terminology around people who are clearly ignorant and use their ignorance as a weapon against you instead of take the time to learn what the hell they are talking about, that's not a community you want to participate in anyway.