Women write better code

[Perrie Juran]

---

steph Arnott wrote:

 

BTW, have just been informed that cross posting of comments is a violatoin.

---

Chapter & Verse please.  

[steph Arnott]



[Phil Deakins]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Incidentally, who are the meat-balls you refered to? Those who are only capable of writing in high level languages? Those who can't write programmes at all but can often understand some bits of a high level language programme? Or perhaps those who can write in assembly language but not in machine code? I think meat-balls abound

But high level programming languages do 

not

only exist to allow others to understand them..They exist specifically to make programming easier. And anyone who can and has written in assembly language or machine code knows how much easier writing in high level languages is. They don't exist for the reason you stated, but the fact that they do exist is very useful for that purpoe.

---

Meat

-brains

are humans, whose brains are made of meat and comprehend consistent abstract patterns of symbols as language, as opposed to computers, whose "brains" are made of silicon and "comprehend" patterns of on-off electrical pulses. High level languages exist to make programming easier

for humans

. And so do comments on what any given section of code is doing.

---

I wrote meat-balls instead of meat-brains. That was a mistake. Perhaps I was feeling hungry at the time  

Nevertheless, meat-brains definitely sounded like an insult to me, and it still.does, even though I accept your explanation of how it was meant. In other words, I accept that you meant it to simply differentiate between animal forms, humans in particular, and inanimate objects - specifically computers. It's not an expression that I've come across, not that I'm aware of, anyway, and it does give the strong impression of being insulting - along the lines of 'dickhead.

[Kelli May]

I've seen the related term 'meatspace' (where 'meat' lives, as opposed to cyberspace where code lives) in cyberpunk fiction. Less often, I've seen 'meatware' as a term for human brain-power, or human/animal systems in general (as the organic equivalent to 'hardware'). I can't remember if I've ever seen 'meat brains' as a term before, but it did feel like a natural term for human brains in context. That's just how I took it when I read it.

Oddly enough, I do hear the insult 'meat-head' thrown about from time to time, in the context of someone with 'muscle for brains' (a friend of mine uses it for the front row of his rugby team).

[steph Arnott]

"To attempt to link this article based on Github developers with the Second Life 'scripted-language-for-autiistic-people' is drawing a rather long bow." has nothing to do with any thing. Have no idea why you even said it. Where does it even mention it before your comment?

[Phil Deakins]

---

Kelli May wrote:

I've seen the related term 'meatspace' (where 'meat' lives, as opposed to cyberspace where code lives) in cyberpunk fiction. Less often, I've seen 'meatware' as a term for human brain-power, or human/animal systems in general (as the organic equivalent to 'hardware'). I can't remember if I've ever seen 'meat brains' as a term before, but it did feel like a natural term for human brains in context. That's just how I took it when I read it.

Oddly enough, I do hear the insult 'meat-head' thrown about from time to time, in the context of someone with 'muscle for brains' (a friend of mine uses it for the front row of his rugby team).

---

I've been educated concerning the use of the word 'meat', but I'd still take as an insult if someone called me a 'meat-brain', and, if I'm not istaken the brain isn't meat at all. Muscle is meat, isn't it? and the brain isn't muscle.

I've just had a quick look on the Web and it seems that the brain isn't muscle but can be considered as muscle because, apparently, it can grow and get stronger, so it's muscle-like in that respect, rather than actual muscle. It seems a bit obvious though because muscle does physical things but the brain doesn't. Therefore, if anyone calls me a meat-brain, I shall take it as an insult, because it's like saying muscle-brain, which, apparently, is an insult.

Note: Nobody called me a meat-brain, and this , to me, is a light-hearted bit of dicussion.

[Phil Deakins]

Since I've been posting in this thread, I thought I'd better say something concerning the OP's original post, or I'll just be a parasite in the thread..

I've no idea whether or not women, on the whole, make better programmers than men. I do believe that the 2 genders have some differences and different aptitudes, other than the phyical differences, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if it's found that one gender is generally better at programming than the other. I don't mean that all of one gender are better at something than all of the other gender. I just mean that I believe there's a tendancy for one gender to be better able in some non-physical things than the other gender.

For a geat many years, I've been of the opinion that women make better managers than men, because, the higher up the managerial ladder men go, the more they tend to want to lean back and put their feet up on the desk, whereas women tend to continue being industrious. Whether that's because of a gender difference in aptitude, or because women feel they need to continue proving themselves, I don't know, but it may be a gender aptitude.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Note:

Nobody called me a meat-brain

---

Give me time.

[steph Arnott]

"the higher up the managerial ladder men go, the more they tend to want to lean back and put their feet up on the desk"

Past bisinesses and some still do, used the pyramid system,  which promoted men (this is becouse men were 99% of manegment) one step above their capabilities, which effectivley meant every maneger was in a position beyond their scope, all the way upto the boardroom. Also there was and still is the buddy and family promotions, which i have left out becouse most of those tended to be useless from the start. Thankfully the past mamagment idea of bullying appears to have been resigned to the waste bin in large companies. All that did was make staff do just enough and no more out of revenge. Mindyou some women seem to be just as bad on that attitude, which is bad for the company, have only had one like that and one was more than enough for me, personality flaw i assume.

The USA company idea of everyone is everyones buddy i do not agree with, as it blurs the lines of authority and a deception. There is also the lame excuse of not promoting women on the grounds of  "she will have children at some point, so why invest in her career?".

I do notice that (a lot) men tend to have an attitude of "that looks about right, if it comes back i will adjust it", where as (most) women tend to have a "get it right first time,i do not want to see it again) attitude.

IDK.