"There is nothing, in software engineering that can’t be done by other “non-genius” programmers. Further no one developer is greater than a community of developers. - Coding Ninja"

Are you so sure about it? A million mediocre mathematicians couldn't have achieved what Grigori Perelman did, and a million of mediocre developers couldn't have produced the tools we use nowadays. There is absolutely no evidence that a community of average guys could have come up with something like LIPS or Smalltalk. If you claim otherwise, then please mention ONE example. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants, and only a myopic cretin would deny the staggering impact they have on all our lives and our profession.

For further reading, dear OP, check out this post by Joel Spolsky: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/HighNotes.html

Secondly, the example you gave is about mathematics. In that context I agree. But in the context of software programming this is not the the same. The statement stands.

case in point-> The Elements of Computing Systems: Building a Modern Computer from First Principles (by Noam Nisan).

Your average CS student can do this (from nand to tetris). Kernel development is hard (without a doubt), but not impossible.

"The important stuff gets done by truly outstanding people. To deny this is nothing but laughable."

Once again, you are adding things that do not exist in the original article.

Of course Kernel development isn't impossible. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any kernels in the first place. But of course it is the domain of a rather small number of people.

I've demonstrated that kernel development, although "hard" is possible even by students (hence the reference to the book and its related course).

You have offered nothing in response.

...that's one of his arguments why HTML5 is the "best platform". I wish he would have gone more into detail how he defines "best" as his understanding of that adjective doesn't seem to take into account that more mature platforms have some benefits too. For instance, maturity.

I listed various other arguments for why I feel it's the "best" out there right now. I think the strongest arguments however are the two games in < 24 hours each.

you should probably substantiate that, at least in the article if not here, as you have not given any reason for why this would be true (I have no idea if it is or not).

It may well be, but nothing of what you wrote in the article supports this.

EDIT: let me clarify:

* Mobile Support (large support is not speed of development)

* No compiling (the only thing that seems somewhat related. Many things don't need to be compiled this days though)

* It’s not a plugin (irrelevant to the speed of development, at most a distribution issue)

* It’s not controlled by a single corporation (irrelevant)

* More active development (doesn't make you faster)

* HTML5 games get more attention (irrelevant to your speed)

If you meant "wanting to support gaming in mobile and desktop quickly html5 is the best solution" then it could make sense.

- Want to port your game to a new platform (game console? embedded device?) - just get webkit/mozilla/<your favorite open source browser> to compile. Although this is no small task, in many cases it can be easier and way faster than rewriting the code for an entire game. not to mention this mandates one port per console, rather than one port per game per console. N^2->N time savings :D

- Not being controlled by a single corporation is incredibly important. Take iphone games: want to update your game to use some newly released feature of the sdk? Get ready for 1+ weeks of waiting for approval. Notice a low-level bug in the sdk? ha-ha, have fun talking to Apple's technical support. These are the obvious reasons, there are a million-and-one examples as to how limited access can slow down - and even halts - the game development process.

That's all I have time for now, I'll try and think of some more later

Edit: too/to

Take flash, which is evil in a plugin and controlled by a cruel corporation and runs on unicorn blood. You will still be able to create a game in 24 hours and put it on the market, people do it all the time. No ipad? Sure, read the end of my previous comment.

Also, while this is still irrelevant (cause the statement is that html5 is better than all the others, but there are plenty of open source things), I don't see how finding a bug in the iOS sdk is any different than finding a bug in a browser's canvas implementation. You work around it in both cases cause you can't control your users software setup.

And the fact that iOS apps have to go through an approval process bears no weight in the generic statement that a proprietary platform causes slow time to market.

As for your last point though... lolwut. iOS was just an example, the same is true for consoles, other app markets, etc. iOS apps bear "no weight" in the statement that a proprietary platform causes slow time to market?! iOS is one of the largest and most developed-for proprietary platforms, which makes it a great example, which means it absolutely does bear weight -- and a lot of weight at that -- in a statement that generalizes proprietary platforms. </semantics>

Yes, girls and boys can grow up to become whoever they like, but most girls just don't like technology, just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls. Blame biology but not society.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are differences between girls and boys which drive behaviour. Hormones in adolescence are the clearest example to me.

But then, I used to think that "Girls just don't like chess." It turns out that this very much depends on the age of the girls. Why do numbers of male and female chess players start equal, and then drop off as people get older? It's not related to skill either.

The BBC Radio Four 'popular statistics' programme "More or Less" has a short segment. (They also ask "Are CEOs worth it?" and come to the conclusion that payment for CEOs isn't associated with performance of the company).

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h7cf2#synopsis)

I don't know if this is downloadable outside the UK. I very much hope so.

> just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls.

GI Joe / Action Man?

The "just" in that line needs a [citation needed], and a pretty good one at that.

"There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities."

That might be true, but unless it's shown that these differences lie in the mental faculties that govern the skills for math and engineering, these differences are moot.

"Read up on science before making your absurd statements."

Not to sound too smarmy, but it should be easy for you, all read up on the relevant science, to cough up the relevant citations then eh ?

"just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls."

We just call them 'robots'

"Blame biology but not society." The larger point is not to assign blame, but to improve the situation if possible.

True but irrelevant. It's the "just" in "most girls just don't like technology" I object to, like it's an innate aversion against technology that can't be overcome.

"Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution."

Irrespective of being true or not, engineers, for example, would mostly be placed in the higher ranges. If any difference in the distribution of intelligence could account for the gender imbalance in technical occupations, the difference would be markedly less than would be expected from a potentially deviating IQ distribution.

Regarding "brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning."

Seeing how there are, in absolute numbers, even if not in relative numbers, many women who excel in highly technical occupations and environments, this does not account for any differences, unless it could be shown that this particular subset of women have a different "male spatio-relational reasoning" part of the brain, as opposed to other women.

I do not agree or disagree that biology might have part in a difference in interest in technology in men and women. The point is to identify which part if any. And even if it is ultimately shown that there are biological limits to technology adoption by women in the high ranges of (say) 75%, that still means there are 25% who might be persuaded to become involved in technology by a change in societal behaviour instead of being "sucked into" what at this time is a stereotypical profession for a gender.

Also, did it ever strike you as slightly odd that there was never a woman speaking for herself who came forward and said something like, "Geez, I really would have loved to study advanced algorithms, and functional programming, and later on work in Big Data." The women seem perfectly content with their choices. It's only feminists (of both sexes) who think that they have to speak up for some allegedly silent majority of women who are kept out of technology for whatever reason. If they want to get into the field, they can acquire all the knowledge they want. It's available online, and for free. Let me tell you something: I am a man, and there never was a day when someone rang my door, shoved some programming tutorials into my face and told me, "Go, and work through that." No, instead I had to sit down and find my own sources, and people I could learn from. All of this is hard work.

Oh, and let me tell you another non-pc truth that is so unpalatable for you: technology and sciences are, even for most guys, not necessarily a ton of fun, and if we had the option of simply looking good and marrying a millionaire, we might be less inclined to go work hard as well. Or why do you think there are so few hot women in tech? Surely Elin Nordegren would have had no use for a CS degree.

I'm sorry but that's religion, not science. There's an observable difference, which is maybe related to biology, society, or maybe something else completely. What's it's not is magic. Things don't "just" happen; they happen for a myriad of reasons.

"Two years ago feminists said that girls are "too smart" to go into IT."

Whatever alleged feminists (of both sexes) have said at some point in time, is not that relevant. The blog posts we're discussing gives an experience and a data point. It points out that in this case, the prevalent gender-schism as perpetuated by commercial interests, might not be in the best interests of her child. And if she had not "investigated" this, her daughter might have (over time) closed of a route of development (not just by this one incident of course), that, large and by, is considered to be an accomplishment. To what degree remains an open question, but it should be clear to even the most casual observer that it cannot simply be ascribed to "biology" and be done with it. I'm sure the girl can later on in life decide to pursue her heart-felt wish to become a hairdresser, or a nurse, if she so desires. Or maybe she will be flogged into pursuing a career in science by her "feminist" mom. But either way it is not that relevant to the question.

"Oh, and let me tell you another non-pc truth that is so unpalatable for you:"

It is neither unpalatable nor palatable for me. I don't understand why you would assume so, or whether that particular truth would interest me.

I will leave you to your thoughts.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/luigi.zingales/papers/resear...

You are discussing a positive question, namely why individuals might have certain preferences.

If you think that we should only do or act as biology dictates us, and that trying to change biology doesn't lead us anywhere, you should probably stay away from medical research and sociological studies. Those are two areas where although biology is important, changes in them are also important too.

Identifying yourself by your gender can be harmless and doesn't need to be detrimental to society or equal treatment. But the premise of the blog is "the virtues of Legos for teaching math and engineering concepts to children."

If this premise is taken as true, this particular distinction in gender is harmful to equality of the genders. It's not just that the particular pink set reinforces certain stereotypes, but also that it's simpler and requires less abstract thought to put together.

That said; I'm sure the people at lego have done their market research, and have found that girls (or their mothers) find the "girly" sets more pleasant. Also the people at the outlet will have their reasons for a "blue isle" and a "pink isle".

I guess the morale of the story is for the parents. To not let themselves fall into the trap of the largest common commercial denominator, but to drag your daughter/son at least once through the "wrong isle" when buying toys in an unbiased manner.

Also, why are those feminists only lamenting the lack of female engineers? There are many fields that require that kind of analytical thinking, albeit on lower levels. Heck, why not start a, "Get more girls into plumbing!" campaign? Of course, the feminists are only after the cushy office jobs.

I'm sorry that you group all feminists together, but if you had bother to search for women in plumbing you would have found a lot of women and men who call for more women in that area. For example: http://www.my-plumber.co.uk/userfiles/file/Winter%20Newslett...

We don't need more women programmers for the sake of demographics. We need to stop driving away awesome programmers that happen to be women.

Further, there are surely quite a few women around who are only around because they are women. In other words: their work is sub-par but they keep their job due to their gender. Just like we lower requirements for women in the military, we lower them for women in tech. Yet, there aren't many women signing up for the military. Maybe it's because they just aren't interested in the first place?

Your second point is outrageous nonsense.

BTW, isn't it funny how fashions change? Two years ago you read comments like, "(...) another researcher concludes that only "boys" are stupid enough to go into a field that's globally-fungible, where entry-level salaries are declining, and it's common to think that staying up all night for a company-paid pizza is a good deal.'"": http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/2043254/Not-Enough-W...

Since IT is hot again, and the economy otherwise depressed, suddenly the feminists fire up their PR machine and want to get some of their sisters into cushy (so they think) office jobs. But why aren't there any initiatives to get more women into, say, plumbing, firefighting, or the military?

I smell hypocrisy.

Wow.

> Sure, cold hard facts are "ugly".

They can be. But you don't have any. Using the word "fact" doesn't by itself make your argument factual.

> What's next, calling me "mean"?

Sure, but it's just the capstone on "sexist" and "ill-informed."

I do believe that's the only difference, actually. Girls are not encouraged to enter tech nearly as often as boys are. Also they have fewer women as role models in tech. So it's not surprising that they don't enter the field as often.

of all the people saying how they are so pro-evidence are falling back to these one off anecdotes, just upsets me. no you didnot provide evidence, you showed a case.

if a gender has to be given a easier option to be included just because of their gender, what kind of stupid equality is that.

2) wage gap is hugely debated because all it takes is how much you get paid, rather than any other condition (hours, vacations planned/unplanned, etc). i don't have full details, and would not agree with that. even then it's not full data.

3) also i give in to women being harassed, the point is how much is being exagerrated. some women just complain about people putting fuck in the presentation slides (case in point: dhh's slides from some years ago). we should avoid alcohol then where people get offended by people drinking alcohol at conferences.

4) about the timeline. a) do you think games which involve men getting shot at doesn't invite men to play games, did it stigmatize them from getting into games? i know that rape game is offensive, but like every women is looking at that game and goes, fuck this computers shit, i won't every be a programmer. b) how many times have you heard idiot, stupid, at conference and people got offended at a conference and never came back to the conf again? (in reference to bitch being used in multiple incident, pornstar in slides etc). c) there are some trolls who harass women/women confs. do you know much zed shaw gets trolled? i don't see him complaining about how uninviting the community is and blaming them for not getting things done (also, he would not agree with any point I make, but that's not the point of this reply) d) there is a difference between getting offended by something and anything.

let me tell you a story: there was a famous author who wrote a book once, and at the book signing, one group of women came to talk to him, and told him that they were happy that they didn't find a single offensive word in the book. he said he was happy they know what they were looking for.

also, i agree some women are being harassed, but blaming solely these incidents as the reason for lack of women is misrepresentative and just making women objects to whom people have to provide support to get them in, rather than making them people who want to get in.

no matter what my point is: if you (men or women) want to get something, and can't do it, don't blame it on other people for that not happening.

but i paraphrase

By the way, the alleged shortage is addressed by H1-B visas. They have the welcome side effect of driving down prices of domestic developers, and if this doesn't help, the corporations just collude a tiny little bit and make anti-poaching agreements.

Your first paragraph is pretty vitriolic. Actually I chose to go to a liberal arts college with a strong focus on the humanities, because I knew it would get me a more serious education as well as better connections in business. I didn't feel like I was fighting the odds, I was getting a massive leg up on my career.

There were a lot more women than men around because the nursing program was the best in the area. I think only 4 people graduated with me from the CS department, it was very small. The entire CS faculty was women, but even so there was only one girl student in the entire CS program (not counting the beginning classes which most people didn't pass). This was mainly because the boys in the classes had started studying computers much earlier, so the girls thought they must somehow be less smart when really they just didn't have the same head start. That's also discussed here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3836440

The claim that there is a shortage has nothing to do with the fact that tech is more welcoming to men. It's two completely separate issues. I know. You brought it up when you said that men were being encouraged to go into tech, to the point that they were almost being pushed away from other fields. Demographically speaking (looking at the whole population) no one - neither men nor women - is encouraged to get into tech. Therefore there is a shortage of skilled workers.

Aside from the millennia of oppression of women, you mean, keeping them out of every professional field? And aside from endemic gender stereotyping that pushes women strongly away from "hard" professions and toward "soft" ones? Oh, and aside from the dozens of conversations I've had with women in tech talking about how they've been mistreated?

Aside from all that, mainly because I'm really suspicious of unprovable arguments for a status quo that's very convenient for the speaker.

Conservators in museums face the same issues with video art and installation art. The video equipment becomes obsolete and breaks down. The light bulbs are no longer made (an art-prep person for a recent MOCA retrospective had to drive a van from LA to Arizona to lay hands on the last available batch of a certain type of florescent tube). With some minimalist installations, just changing the bulbs can make a huge difference.

Here's a little piece on conservation challenges with a piece by Nam June Paik, who pioneered wall-size video installations:

http://www.digitalartconservation.org/index.php/en/exhibitio...

"In the case of Internet Dream, the splitting system was the Achilles heel of the installation. The video splitter used since 1994 was produced by the South Korean manufacturer DASH. Since the manufacturer helped Paik with the technical realization of many of his works (including Megatron/Matrix in 1995), it is likely that this device was specially constructed for the installation. By 2008, the device’s shutdown function had become problematic, probably a sign of more serious loss of function to come."

You see the same dichotomy between fine-art creators versus conservators, as you see between video game artists and emulator designers: "whatever works in the moment" freedom versus obsessive attention to detail.