QuoteUnder no circumstances should the language be compiled, as compilation and the use of a compiler imposes an oppressive and toxic relationship between the high-level descriptive language and the low-level machine code that does all the labo(u)r. Instead, C+= is interpreted, which fosters communication, itself a strong female trait.
wow, just... wow.
QuoteWomen are more social than men. Hence, social coding should be the only option. The code only runs if it is in a public repo.
... The. Fuck. well, I guess that's one way to enforce opensource code.
QuoteInstead of "running" a program, which implies thin privilege and pressure to "work out", programs are "given birth". After birth, a program rolls for a 40% chance of executing literally as the code is written, 40% of being "psychoanalytically incompatible", and 40% of executing by a metaphorical epistemology the order of the functions found in main().
Buwha? so I can write my code but it only has a 40% chance of running as I wrote it and a 80% chance of doing something entirely different? forgoing to complaint iy that adds up to more than 100% the principle alone is absurd as it breaks all computational theory
QuotePrograms are never to be "forked", as the word has clear misogynistic tendencies and is deeply problematic. Instead, programmers may never demand "forking", but ask for the program to voluntarily give permission. "Forking" will henceforth be called "consenting", and it is entirely up to the program to decide if the consent stands valid, regardless of the progress of the system clock.
it's dead already, parallelism is a key requirement of modern programming.
QuoteForced program termination is not allowed unless the program consents to it. The process is part of the choice of the program, not the programmer.
say again? I can't force a program to close? just... what? why!? that's plain stupid! what if it's hanging? corrupting my ram or hard disk? leaking memory? hte program has to find it in it heart to not destroy my computer? because you know, programs have hearts.
QuoteOn 1s and 0s
The traditional binary foundation of 1s and 0s is deeply problematic: 1 is inherently phallic and thus misogynistic. Also, some 1s are 0s, and some 0s are 1s. It is not fair to give them immutable labels. Instead, we have 0s and Os as our fundamental binary logic gates. They symbolise/-ize the varying, natural, and beautiful differences of the female vaginal opening.
0 is to take the conventional value of 0.
O is 50% of the time 0, and 50% of the time 1. The determination of this depends on how the underlying logic feels at the moment.
Can't. talk. laughing. BUHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Quote
Anything that can be construed as misogynist will be corrected, thus:
private == privileged
printf(); == yell();
class Foo{}; == social_construct Foo{};
#include == #consider
break; == leave;
if() == check()
for() == check()
while() == check()
sin(x) == biotruth(x)
div == unite
'y's are strictly prohibited when naming variables; only 'x's are allowed
that last one. oh gods.
QuoteSocietal influences have made men often focus on the exterior appearances of women. This poisons our society and renders relationships to be shallow, chauvinistic, and debases our standards of beauty. To combat that, C+= is to tackle only audio and text I/O, and never graphics.
there are no words.
TL;DRthe entire premise of the language is idiotic. computational theory to data has been written to be efficient and sound of logic. based in solid math and science. and believe it or not there are about the same number of women credits for advancing computational theory as men.
the constructs of the language are absurd.
1) there are no Boolean values you can say maybe, I'm sorry but unless your dealing with quantum computation or using a system of logic completely foreign to me how does this work?
2) there is no flow control as it all "just a suggestion" the computer can decide not to check the condition. The fuck?
3) so many things wrong.
conclusion:
EITHER these people are crazy they but ARE furthering a interesting experiment in computational theory. they are writing a language that somehow crosses the boundary from classical to quantum computing I won't even pretend to understand how it works but good luck, I hope I can use the fruits of your labor some day.
OR they are bat-shit insane and are actually writing a classical language but renaming everything on a whim to give the appearance of their values. in which case have fun with that. I'll just sit over here and laugh as you write in that god aweful syntax and suffer through the snails pace of interpreted code.
either way, had a laugh, never show this to me again, i think I'm going to be sick looking at that horrible code. I though Id seen the worst when I had to use VB