Women write better code it's official.

In a study of github project submissions it was found that women are better at pulling than men (pun intended)!

Link -> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...en-better-code-men-github-study-a6870836.html

 

Cool.

 

...And?

 

I fail to see the point. Some men are better at coding than some women, some women are better at coding than some men... In reality, the actual skill matters for me, not what type of plug they have.

 

Publishing results with no peer review. That's naughty.

There are so many statistical traps one could fall into when attempting this study. Including the obvious one in the thread title. I would be surprised if the results are meaningful.

At the moment it's just click bait for news media. But I'd be interested in the results when there are dozens of studies out on the topic.

 

To be fair, this is far from being "official", in any sense of the word.

 

Documentation matters more in the modern world of obfuscation & minification.

 

IMHO women are better at everything. Get used to it guys, you're so slow. But it's OK they're better at everything, because it's the flipside of the coin to be better at responsibility and better at rolling eyes at how much fun I'm having!

WOO HOO! *throws pants over shoulder and goes skinny dipping*

 

Also it's a little known fact that God is in fact a woman.

 

Wouldn't be too surprised.
Women seem to speak in codes all the time anyways.

But srsly, not peer-reviewed yet.
And when i read:

Maybe because there are more men generally interested in coding, this also means more noobs who just think they're male so programming automatically suits them, though they're wrong with that thought and thus creating more bad-code pull requests than women.

I wonder if the resulting statement would still look the same if they only compared the same number male and female coders, like only the top 100-1000 of each gender.

 

While I made a joke above, I was pretty serious when I said they were better at everything. This is a finding I've found through a few decades of hands on life-experience. Women plain excel at things they like to do. There's a catch, whoever wants to be good at something has to like, or really be passionate about it.

Now times have moved on, women are no longer constantly blocked from following their more geeky passions and we're seeing women excel with everything else - a good thing. A very good thing.

Shame some of my gender are still too basic at times to accept that it's actually perfectly OK for a woman to match or go beyond their ability. Gender doesn't matter but the responsibility is still on men to stop seeing women as 3 headed monsters.*


* 3 is too limiting

 

That applies to humans in general. You do something you like for enough time and you get good at it.

The thing about statistics reminded me of this video:

 

That was my point. If you understood me, I inferred that women still are held back from doing so.

 

Reminds me of this one time we decided to try some practice shots with some golf clubs we had. My mom, who had never tried it before, hit the ball perfect... and then proceeded to do it again with the next one.

 

I'll assume that this is a cultural or region-specific thing.

I hate clickbait, and that headline stinks.

Also, I haven't MET (IRL) even one woman programmer in my life.

So the "study" is probably the case what @Fuzzy: mentioned. Small number of top programmers competing with sea of wannabees.

...

The whole thing reminded me of this video, though:

 

Does COBOL count?

 

Women without dedication to code never code. Because that's not in fashion. As stated above, that's statistical trap. It causes rift: "average male programmer who does it for money" or "average female programmer who does it because she likes it". Of course second type will have average relative better results just because they want to do it. It won't work in absolute numbers as there are more excellent male programmers than there are female ones.

I'd like to disagree with you in "everything" part. Male sports are better, males made more modern science advancements in high-tech, even medical surgeons, do I need to continue? In everyday work I'd agree - women are better suited for modern society(there were some researches on that somewhere sometime ago I think). But not everything. It's just most women are not suited for high-tech developing. Programming included. If you want to argue first answer me: you can see about only like 5 out of 25 people being female on math faculties and sometimes even less - don't tell me it's because of some discremination, there is none. So why is that?

One of reasons is because they're really rare. I'm yet to see any female programmers after I've finished university (my faculty was about programming, so of course I've seen female programmers there and they were at least as good as others). So... Most are skeptical: "Can she really program?". Especially if they didn't properly watched that women can program during university days. Most didn't watch their programming, but other places, you know what I mean, and that is assuming they at least studied at programming faculty as a lot who are hiring did not - causing rift to be even wider.

P.S. I'm not talking about all, there are exceptions. And exceptions are usually better than most - like most scientists that went into history had psychological disorders (=they were exceptions from most of humans). That also contributing into statistics in female programmers case.

 

What is your definition of "better"? Which sports are you referring to? Are they biased towards men?

Men being the majority results in more male advancements. Who would have thought?

 

Who cares coding is only part of making a game anyway.

 

Stop being sexist, also I'm not fussed whether it's chubby splashing or skinny dipping.. .

Depends on what I just ate..

 

Running speed, jumping height, throw power, teamwork based games (like volleyball matches are much faster and have much more powerful shots in male sports - and it is treated as more female oriented sport where I am). Basically all physical results are better, I don't know of any discipline where women are better than men. Just look at olypmic records of men and women - and compare them.

Noone forbids women to make those advancements. So they are not "Male advancements". Why not a woman created a first PC? Noone really held women back then. Why was it not woman who structured relativist theory? Universities did not have any gender discrimitaion back then already. What maths or physics (or any other precision-based science) female scientists you know? What male ones you know? Why is there so big difference in their count in second half of 20th and later centuries(I'm removing times when female discrimination was in place like they couldn't get into universities on purpose)?

 

That's another statistical trap, though. There are less female programmers, because less girls take corresponding courses. That does not prove however, mean that hey're worse at them. Just that smaller number of them chooses to study in that area.

Not sure what "better" is supposed to mean, but males are have greater upper body strength.
The difference, however, is not huge, meaning that trained woman won't have any trouble kicking *** of untrained male.

There are also major exceptions, though (google "Maryana Naumova" - that one could lift 100lbs at age of 3).

 

have you seen this picture?

that's programmer responsible for moon landing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing
http://www.wired.com/2015/10/margaret-hamilton-nasa-apollo/

The thread is slowly going to S***. I think it'll be the time to summon the hippo soon.

---

Also that's one more reason why I hate articles and headlines like that.
Because many countries in the world didn't have a luxury of having equal gender rights forcibly introduced in 1920, those kind of discussions always derail into this kind of kindergarten nonsense.

 

End of the day, I find these comparisons ridiculous.. It's always been in my mind invidually based, some men and women I've met are extremely smart, some probably couldn't even tie their own shoelaces.

A friend of mine (male) is family orientated and not very career driven, my partner isn't and neither am I. The only constant is there is no constant. It depends on the person and the choices they make..

 

True, that opinion is valid as well. But from what I've seen, most just don't want to do complex things. It's not they can't, it's they don't want to. And I'll stick with that opinion.

Of course there are female scientists. They didn't create PC, only algorithms(important as well, but not what I said). Besides, you missed the point:

It was from the beginning, no? There was no statement on quality of code anywhere above, yet topic implies it. How about some actual code for a change?

 

Well, where have you worked? I worked for a AAA house which my boss (senior lead) was female, so was half the development team. When I worked in IT and owned a company it was about a 50/50 split, I did some work for a lot of major companies and there were a fair few everywhere I've been.

Granted I've only ever worked in Europe and / or US. So my experiences could somewhat be skewed..

Anyway, yeah these sort of threads never lead to anything productive sooo....

 

A woman is considered to be the first programmer though. You can see her algorithm on the page too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

Or an Aurore (requires a weekday I believe). If it somehow lasts that long though it'll likely be beyond ready for a close.

 

That's not a valid argument and not a good point.

The number of scientist of specific gender you or I would know does not prove anything aside from you or me lacking knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_in_mathematics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_physicists

Just because you don't "see" something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and just because you don't "know" about something, doesn't mean it isn't true or real.

There are large groups of people doing this or that thing in the world, and you don't know anything about them, just because they never hit the news. Those people still exist, though.

So, "how many do you know?" ultimately doesn't prove anything...

 

Additionally just because someone is credited with an invention doesn't actually mean they invented it first.

 

Yes. Some inventors got the short end of the stick, despite discovering/creating something first. That kind of things happens often. Sometimes people never published their inventions, records were lost, etc.

And for a practical example of lacking knowledge, someone could try, for example, naming ONE zimbabwian(or use any country you never visited) scientist without looking it up on the web.

 

Okay, I'll admit there "you know" won't prove. I should've asked how many there are at all. Let me catalogue what wiki knows:
187 pages on woman physists.
897 total physists.(counted lines in openoffice calc after removing all non-physist ones)
After removing all physists that died before 1910 (just liberal year I took for puposes of cutting all-male-greek-philosophers) there are 779 physists remaining total from total list.

 

@Teravisor: Far higher statistics than I was expecting, but at the same time this doesn't really prove anything aside from women are simply less commonly found pursuing those fields of interest.

 

Had to lock. The typical usual male comments that undermine females started to creep in here and there. I really can't stand that, hoped thread would just remain light and fun.