If you don't like the language, don't use the library? Seems a simple solution.
People see reactions like yours and they develop impressions that software programmers are boring stick-in-the-muds. The result is that programmers are not treated as people you'd want to interact with.
In the grand scheme of things do you think that people who write like Zed are going to feel compelled to change their behaviour because you would like them too?
That's probably better than being treated as unprofessional.
> The result is that programmers are not treated as people you'd want to interact with.
It's totally possible to be friendly and have a sense of humor without being distasteful.
> do you think that people who write like Zed are going to feel compelled to change their behaviour because you would like them too?
Nope, that thought never crossed my mind.
After years in the industry, I've become weary of the word "professionnal". It doesn't mean youre talented, it doesn't mean you have a good understanding of how computers really work. It only means you're good at being politically correct.
And that has very little value when it comes to developing software. You can't describe something rational using emotional language.
I agree with you entirely. I've heard the word "professional" at least an order of magnitude more when the topic of conversation is my mohawk rather than my work output or ability to operate in a team.
I see two options. Either I'm so middling at my job nobody would ever call me unprofessional, professional or suggest that I act more professional. Or, as I suspect, the word "professional" is a nothing but a tool to conflate the social signaling of conformance with the ability to perform a job.
Both metrics look good on the surface. Yet using them shows a very poor understanding of what engineering is.
I've found that if you want to work as a software engineer with people who don't make those types of judgments and regard and pay you as a professional, there are more than enough opportunities.
You may find swearing distasteful, but for some of us working with people who judge us based on some moral assessment of our language is just as repulsive.
I understand your point and on a personal level I agree. I maintain a level of professionalism in my own work. I find that kind of language ultimately unproductive.
However, the OSS world has a good deal of engineering talent that swears like a sailor and is, at the same time, quite successful. This is simply an observable fact.
Code is speech. Open source projects often have a subtext of affecting a political or social change either within a software community, or sometimes beyond. In this particular case, my reading of the text is that Zed wishes to create a baseline of ridicule for those who would prefer to alter software to support extremely old browsers. It's a fair position, and while he may be able to make that point without vulgar language he may also be effectively speaking to his audience with his crude humor.
As merijnv noted above, if you feel so strongly about language you're free to not use his project. He is free to speak and code as he wishes and you are free to support what you wish. This freedom of expression is extremely valuable, not because the word "fuck" has any particular intrinsic value, but because it's a culture of permissiveness which enables people to speak their minds and attempt to affect change even if they're clumsy and crude with language. Because it allows comedy -- and everyone's perception of comedic value is different.
One time, I almost used a custom license in one of my projects which would have required my users to read a controversial book that supported my stance on something. It was intended to be half-joking and half-thought-provoking. But I decided to abandon this and use a standard free license, figuring that it's completely the wrong venue to try to effect social change, and it would prohibit people from deriving any utility from my project. I wish all public software projects would do the same. I know, it's a pipe dream, but a man can wish, can't he?
> As merijnv noted above, if you feel so strongly about language you're free to not use his project.
It's not practical to avoid using a project just because I disagree with its attitude. And it makes no sense to boycott it on principle, as I don't think so highly of myself to think my stance on something like this will actually have any kind of effect. I only wanted to comment on this to open discussion about the matter.
You may want to consider that your personal values aren't representative of the norm.
[1]: i.e. https://twitter.com/steveklabnik
[2]: probably too hard
Who other than programmers do you think is going to see the readme?
If you question that others shouldn't complain about other things then we quickly end up in a world where movie critics can't criticize a movie since they didn't pay for them. Where I can't criticize google since their services are for free.
You should always speak up and voice your opinion. But your argument "don't complain, take it or leave it; it's for free" can't be applied anywhere IMO. In fact, the author should be thankful for any critique he's getting. Not getting any feedback means that nobody cares about your work or doesn't care about you failing.
Not really. It's like the movie critic spotlighting a comment the director passed on set. Or you bitching about a comment in Google's C++ code you saw on a Googler's laptop. You know, you don't have to care about that stuff. Just use it!