A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

Fr33maan wrote: post #4

anticristi wrote: post #2

Does anyone else think the title is sexist by today's standards?

I have strictly no idea why OP is using women nor in the title or illustrations

It's a jokey reference to the movie Mean Girls (a comedy).

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#8

Post by 1_player » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 9:50 AM UTC

Fr33maan wrote: post #4

anticristi wrote: post #2

Does anyone else think the title is sexist by today's standards?

I have strictly no idea why OP is using women nor in the title or illustrations

Is mentioning women off limits nowadays? Come on. It might as well been "Kindness for Mean Boys" and the meaning and implications of it would not change a single iota, except losing the movie reference and light tone the author wanted to go for.

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#9

Post by ORioN63 » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 9:51 AM UTC

Fr33maan wrote: post #4

anticristi wrote: post #2

Does anyone else think the title is sexist by today's standards?

I have strictly no idea why OP is using women nor in the title or illustrations

He's drawing a comparison between Haskell kinds and concepts shown in the (once) popular teenage movie "Mean Girls".

Re: A primer on the cruel, tacit laws of type-level programming in Haskell

#10

Post by smt88 » Sun, Jun 28, 2020, 9:52 AM UTC

anticristi wrote: post #2

Does anyone else think the title is sexist by today's standards?

It's a stupid title. Connecting the concept to a movie was unnecessary.

But it's not any more sexist than making a movie called (and about) Mean Girls in the first place...