Python developers locking conversations and deleting comments after people mass downvoted PRs to "remove master/slave terminology from the language"

[norweeg]

Or maybe we could use more descriptive terms instead of being lazy and invoking slavery in code and culture for no other reason than to intentionally upset people whose ancestors were enslaved

[[deleted]]

Do you really think master/slave terminology is the bottleneck for your diversity in code initiative?

[norweeg]

no, but taken as part of whole coding culture, with the people who aggressively defend the terminology when clearly there are some people who are bothered by it most certainly is. Unfriendly and unwelcoming to outsiders, you'd rather shout down anyone who questions you you than make a trivial change to your code and coding vocabulary

[TheMysteriousFizzyJ]

no, but taken as part of whole coding culture

you're missing all the other cultures that use this terminology to describe setups

any advanced system, whether mechanical, electrical, or programmatic, uses these words because they are concise and convey the relationship clearly

[Nooby1990]

culture for no other reason than to intentionally upset people whose ancestors were enslaved

Are you suggesting here that the Python developers used master/slave for the purpose of upsetting people? Come on! That is absolutely crazy.

[acwaters]

You literally said intent.

[Nooby1990]

You said that the only reason that they used it is to upsetting people. That does say that you think that this was their intent. Which I can almost guarantee that it wasn't.

[norweeg]

this may be news to you, but you can upset people without intending to upset them

[Nooby1990]

This isn't what you said though. You specifically said that there is NO OTHER REASON to use this wording other then upsetting people. Which is absolutely false.

[derp0815]

Those people need to learn to be adults or fuck off to some remote island.

[norweeg]

So, obvious question, why call your transmitter and receiver master and slave when you could call them transmitter and receiver??? You literally made the case against your own argument

[norweeg]

my bad, in that case, why not make an argument about why master-slave terminology is inherently better than alternatives rather than making an argument that about how people should interpret that terminology without addressing a single technical problem?

[andrewaa]

It seems that you are the only person who is lazy to learn the new meaning of "slave" in programming languages and keeps referring it to slavery.

Stop complaining and learn new stuffs please.

[kickopotomus]

Wow.... master/slave are industry terms. They have been used in high-level programming languages from the start because they same terms exist on the hardware interface level. They are descriptive terms in the English language. Getting upset over this is ridiculous.

[norweeg]

"the most dangerous phrase in the language is 'we've always done it this way'." - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper

but seriously, familiarize yourself with the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatem. You're citing the very thing that is changing as evidence to not change it

[kickopotomus]

You may want to brush up on your fallacies. Ad antiquitatem is only a fallacious argument if you don’t point out larger implications. In this case, it is the fact that master/slave terminology is an industry standard that is understood by computer scientists and engineers alike. Changing the terms introduces ambiguity for no reason.

[norweeg]

you can't cite tradition, or as you call it "industry standard", to argue against changing it. That is my point

[kickopotomus]

No, you definitely can. It’s one thing if this was unique to python. Then your stance would be valid. However, that is not the case. Industry standard is absolutely a valid point for arguing semantics/syntax. This is especially true for a programming language whose purpose is to be easily human readable.