The writer assumes the reader is a man also. They use he and they to refer to programmers, but never she. The only time she is used in this entire document is referring to a woman delivering your code:
> The outcome you should be thinking of is a lady who’s going to get fired if she doesn’t deliver the output of your program at 4:59pm sharp.
Back in 2014, “he” was still considered by many to double up as a gender neutral singular pronoun (which was the standard in English for at least a century). The rehabilitation of “they” as a gender neutral singular is very, very recent. I had to be actively taught not to use it that way back in the late '80s.
This, of course, was the proscriptivist position. Kids who “don’t know any better” have always used a gender neutral singular “they” until their teachers told them not to.
Very much sounds like a tech bro wrote it. A lot of these are simply in the wrong place. I feel being “eager to fix what isn’t broken” is a terrible trait on most projects that need to ship. Or at least, terrible if you go forward with trying to fix something that isn’t broken without looping in production first. You have a schedule to keep so if it works, continue forward. The whole article reeks of perfection being the end goal rather than good enough. Every usable technology out there is built off of good enough being the goal. I’ve yet to see a piece of software that shipped with perfection being the goal and actually hitting that goal. More so when you lose that sight of good enough you stop making adjustments to fix things quickly. “Well this button doesn’t work the third time you click it really fast” “Well that’s because our button interface has a specific pop back-up animation delay and we’ll need to rewrite the whole button system interface to become clickable again only after the button pops back up. So let’s put that as the only answer on Jira, slate it will take 3 months, and ignore you could just clear the delay if the button is clicked again as a workaround.”
This reads very much like a tech bro wrote it
The writer assumes the reader is a man also. They use he and they to refer to programmers, but never she. The only time she is used in this entire document is referring to a woman delivering your code:
> The outcome you should be thinking of is a lady who’s going to get fired if she doesn’t deliver the output of your program at 4:59pm sharp.
Back in 2014, “he” was still considered by many to double up as a gender neutral singular pronoun (which was the standard in English for at least a century). The rehabilitation of “they” as a gender neutral singular is very, very recent. I had to be actively taught not to use it that way back in the late '80s.
This, of course, was the proscriptivist position. Kids who “don’t know any better” have always used a gender neutral singular “they” until their teachers told them not to.
Very much sounds like a tech bro wrote it. A lot of these are simply in the wrong place. I feel being “eager to fix what isn’t broken” is a terrible trait on most projects that need to ship. Or at least, terrible if you go forward with trying to fix something that isn’t broken without looping in production first. You have a schedule to keep so if it works, continue forward. The whole article reeks of perfection being the end goal rather than good enough. Every usable technology out there is built off of good enough being the goal. I’ve yet to see a piece of software that shipped with perfection being the goal and actually hitting that goal. More so when you lose that sight of good enough you stop making adjustments to fix things quickly. “Well this button doesn’t work the third time you click it really fast” “Well that’s because our button interface has a specific pop back-up animation delay and we’ll need to rewrite the whole button system interface to become clickable again only after the button pops back up. So let’s put that as the only answer on Jira, slate it will take 3 months, and ignore you could just clear the delay if the button is clicked again as a workaround.”