|
|
|
|
|
|
by kangalioo
1870 days ago
|
|
|
1) The last name of Kant can't be retrospectively changed, plus the field of philosophy is not nearly as English-centric as computer science. 2) The language of computer science is English. A technical word being offensive in English has much more weight than being offensive in another language, because it affects so much more people. 3) Yes, ideally, people would abstain from snickering about the unintended sound of Coq in conversations. Unfortunately, that is just not happening. "harassment or awkward situations, reports about students (notably women) who ended up not learning / using Coq because of its name." You will not be able to completely eradicate all those awkward situations involving "Coq" by pointing out that "context matters". 4) Coq is very widely used in an English context, seeing as computer science itself is largely English. When (presumably) the majority of users of a project is American, it does make sense to cater to them to some extent. We should not downplay the absolutely real problems that Coq's current name causes. |
|
|
When they became famous, US corporations started monetizing them, buying contributors and slowly dictated everything.
Languages like Python, which started in Europe and have at least 75% non-US contributions, are completely governed in the US. European and Asian opinions are ignored and sometimes derided, all while pretending to foster an "inclusive" environment.
Projects moving to GitHub have caused many contributors to stop. No one cares, because the "right people" use GitHub and the others don't matter.
Perhaps Academia is isolated from these issues to some extent, but make no mistake: In the current climate a renaming is highly political; in my opinion French students should revolt to protect their identity, it is the straw that breaks the Caml's back.