Sure, why not? You're not in a professional relationship. You aren't in a position to influence a hiring decision. You're two humans with common interests.
If I had a programmer who refused to document the company's core money-making algorithm, that programmer would be out the door by 5pm, and I'd hire a sensible, smart programmer to reverse engineer, rewrite, and document it. No one in tech is that special.
You can write documentation on something and still have it be very hard to understand to the point where other developers can't understand.
Say it's a start up in the first two years of doing business. You're going to rewrite a stable money making functionality just because one guy wouldn't document the code? That's just plain stupid.
Also a smart programmer wouldn't have to reverse engineer the code, THEY GOT THE CODE. Also who says you're going to find a smart programmer? You've burnt your bridge before you've crossed it.
Some people are that special as shown by multiple companies doing this in multiple sectors. Life isn't fair, it doesn't work the way you think it should, it just keeps on rolling with people generally taking the safest option for them to succeed.
That's tricky, because C++ is statically typed and you've selected a varying value type, but here's the closest thing in real terms.
#include <map>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
#include <boost/any.hpp>
using boost::any;
using std::map;
using std::string;
using std::vector;
int main() {
map<string,any> x = {{"foo", 34}, {"bar", vector<int>{1,2,3}}, {"bar", "quux"}};
}
How does this reduce comprehensibility? In cases where you're doing matrix muls, "a @ b" is way clearer than "a.dot(b)". In other cases, infix "@" won't appear.
Hey, you can say and think whatever you want... but be careful of the "consequences". You are free... but be very afraid that we might find that you think the wrong thing.
This school of thought is being defended across tech forums. Appalling.
I'm saying that publicly rallying for the persecution of someone based on a prop donation shouldn't be encouraged or defended in any way. It's pure fascism.
Oh yea, because having to step down from a company is like going to jail, or hell, not being able to see your dying significant other because you aren't allowed to marry. Yep he was definitely persecuted.
You'll forgive me if I find expanding the definition of "marriage" in state and federal law to be a more reasonable approach than having to fight separate battles for each of the 1000+ legal rights and obligations which currently accrue to married couples.
In many countries, you have the concept of de-facto relationships - you don't even need to be married, let alone have a civil union, and you have the same rights.
So it's not like the courts couldn't do it - and in many cases have.
However, this entire debate is purely one of ideology and semantics.
It was never about "privileges" (whether tax, medical, or whatever), but about two different people trying to define what marriage meant.
For some groups, marriage has ties to family and raising children - and human society has sort of flowed along those lines for thousands of years.
Another groups says times are a changing, and we need to redefine marriage to also include homosexual relationships, which while nothing to do with families (as we know them) or creating children, are still marriages.
The definition of the traditional nuclear family unit, and the inherent roles and responsibilities as we currently know them is very much geared towards man-and-woman relationships.
You could argue that we should change these definitions - but until the, how the majority of people in most countries think of families is very much coloured by the concept of the nuclear family.
Then again, times are a changing - so maybe you'll argue that in the future, we'll do away with the concept of this procreation business, and just clone humans, or have surrogate artificial wombs and we'll just pick our kids off an assembly line fully grown =).
For starters:
* Members of a couple (same-sex or opposite sex) have family obligations to their partner's extended family.
* A surprising number of same-sex couples have biological children from earlier relationships.
* The "traditional nuclear family unit" is not that old a tradition - prior to large-scale industrialization and easy migration, extended families were the rule. It's just one kind of family. Others exist.
It is irrational to associate a homophobic hate crime with a donation to gay marriage opponents. But that's OK. As long as you can raise a fuss about it you can completely ignore reason and pressure people into resigning.
> No one should be afraid of losing their job for voicing their opinion in a public debate. No one.
Really? I guess there's no inherent problem with a homophobe or white supremacist coder, as long as he does his job and doesn't cause trouble at work. But a manager, who hires and fires, or a CEO, who is the public face of the company? It seems "rational and sustainable" to hold them to higher standards.
Is one of those higher standards political compliance with what's hip in the Valley right now? What about voting for a certain president?
You know what? Let's amend the right to free speech so it excludes Mozilla CEOs, just to be on the safe side. Oh, and the next CEO better be a peruvian-aleutian lesbian just to show that the company doesn't discriminate (any more).
Or put "RonPaul2012" all over everything to appeal to your ilk? If you want to be a CEO, either avoid politics, or know that the people who agree with you have enough money.
