Most coders just happen to like coding. Selling IT services to a government might involve a little coding, but it's mostly about mastering the procurement process. Where do you even start with that?
Yea, I work quite a bit with government contracts, and to be honest it's a lot of fun and it offers some very interesting projects and R&D opportunities. But I work for mid sized consulting group that has at least two layers of insulation between me and the customer. My boss is an absolute hero for dealing with the stuff he deals with to make sure I just get to code. There is no way in hell I'd try to get involved in that world if I had to deal directly with the whole procurement process myself.
Also I try to only take smaller projects (up to $100000 or so) since they tend to be handled by much more sane people all around.
There may be some pointers here applicable to the US scene. Nevertheless, it's good to see management finally realizing the cost benefits of smaller-scale operators.
In Medellin, Colombia, they have this fair about government transparency where the local governments shows to all participants all the different projects, how much was paid, who participated and specially relevant for your comment, they teach people and companies how to participate in the whole process.
And a subset of those problems are the insane RFPs and ridiculous red tape you go through when you design stuff for the government. Try it sometime. It's a blast.
I think a bigger issue is that it's (at least perceived to be) hard to deal with government for anything. Plus this is about physical infrastructure. I think many coder's fascination with train networks and the like would help fuel an interest in fixing Detroit IT, but those meatspace issues...
Relying on App Store reviewers for feedback is a bad idea. The whole process is capricious. It's likely had he submitted at a different time and gotten a different reviewer, the app would have been approved.
The internet is a big place - it's pretty easy to find pieces on the shortage of male nurses, including peer reviewed papers and articles by professional organizations.
Whats important is that any woman who wants to do CS or Engineering is able to. Equal ratios for its own sake isn't important. If these percentages are the result of the choices of individuals Im not sure what you can to to change them.
I agree that men and women most likely do make different career choices. Yet, choices aren't made in a vacuum.
We have a culture that reinforces ideas of innate gender roles. Little boys are told every day that they need to be tough when they get hurt, that they shouldn't be a crybaby. Little girls are told that they can't handle rough housing, that math is too hard for them. Little girls are told they should be friendly and "nice", that they should play well with others and build communities, mediate between friends. Little boys are told that they need to be responsible and be able to take care of people.
These attitudes are shifting. I am glad that they are shifting. When we tell boys and men that they have to be tough, we create a culture that makes it harder for men who are struggling with things things like depression and addiction to seek help or even admit that they have a problem to their friends. When we tell girls and women that they are weaker and less capable in certain fields, they begin to internalize those values. They begin to believe that they really aren't cut out for it, that it is too hard.
There is a lot more that can be said on this topic, and to some degree it can be debated about just how "innately" different men and women are. However, the problem is that this viewpoint considers things in the aggregate. In life, you are an individual. That means that you should be able to deviate from what "men" are like or what "women" are like just because that is the way you are. So why do we tell little girls and little boys that they should be one way? If there is a difference between men and women, then we should be able to just let that difference exist, without trying to shape people to fit into our view of what those differences might be.
In general, as humans, we like to categorize things. This has been an immensely useful skill. It underlies most of our science and most of understanding of the world. It is fundamental to computer science since it allows us to do things like DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) and OO (Object-oriented). The problem is that when we see fields that are largely male dominated or largely female dominated, many people draw conclusions about what men and women are like. Relatively few stop to consider what societal pressures might have shaped the decisions of the people who enter these fields. They chalk it up to innate differences between men and women. And then they question people who don't fit into those molds that they have created in their own minds.
Think back to those male nurses and female coders that we keep talking about. They don't seem to fit into a mindset that says that men prefer to do things like code and women prefer to do things like caregiving. People express surprise and sometimes even censure because these people don't fit. If we push men out of nursing, we have an even more female-dominated nursing population. We reinforce the idea that women are caregivers. Because why else would so many nurses be women? We've created a cycle. This is why I get concerned when the fields are so disproportionate. It's not just that men and women are making different choices. It's that we have created attitudes that reinforce those choices and make it harder for people to make different choices. It makes it harder for people to succeed when they make a choice that strays from our mental guidelines.
People get to make up their own minds, never mind who created the attitude. It's patronizing to decide what someone else should choose for a career. So the solution doesn't lie in that direction.
And societal pressure comes largely from individual actions. If its wrong to overrule individual choices, then we're left with influencing folks early, perhaps with better role models.
I happen to know male nurses and female programmers. Sometimes I find myself thinking it a little odd, and take pains to show no surprise and make no remark that would reinforce my internal stereotypes.
Awesome! I am glad that you help to normalize people in those positions. I definitely agree that better role models is one of the biggest things we can do and ultimately is the best solution, albeit one that will mostly effect the long-term.
I am a little confused about your first paragraph. I agree that it is patronizing to decide what some else should choose for a career and I hope that I didn't give that impression. Similarly, societal pressure does come largely from individual actions, but I don't think that it is wrong to identify problematic individual actions. Of course we should help those who are bigoted to understand the hurt that they are causing. It's an application of the golden rule (one statement of which is "don't do unto others as you would not have done unto yourself"), and so individual choices which cause harm to others should be overruled.
Note - obviously this is a simplification and it is often difficult to determine what choices will hurt whom and to whose benefit. The world isn't black and white and I acknowledge that.
My thought (that was badly expressed) is that we can't blame men for staying out of nursing, or women for wanting to enter that profession, on the grounds that they're reinforcing stereotypes. Each of us gets to make our own choices for personal reasons that are unavailable to pundits and well-meaning advice.
That makes sense and is a great point. My point, however, was not that we should demonize those who do go into fields that stereotypically/socioeconomically favor them. I sincerely hope it did not come across that way. Rather, we should be encouraging those who do have an interest in fields that do not stereotypically favor them to explore those interests. If we can do that, we will have a more equal gender split that will help to break stereotypes by providing more role models. Even if they don't go into those fields, we will have created a culture in which that choice was made solely on the basis of their passions, goals and abilities.
I have never been harassed about being a man for my interest in computer science, biology, chemistry, physics or engineering (in which I ultimately majored). This is a good thing. Many women who have had an interest in those fields have experienced harassment or discrimination because of their gender. Some have also been fortunate enough to have been spared. Some men have probably been harassed for being one of the many men in STEM/ET as if their interest is their fault. Harassing anyone for wanting to explore their passions is unequivocally wrong.
You can wrap native UI libraries with just about every language in existence. That's not what people usually mean when they say "native" though. I think they mean precompiled to a binary for a specific architecture.
yeah you can. The whole native vs non native is about whether the UI is native and directly integrates with the platform, not the language or whether there is a runtime.
If you were going to develop a mono app on osx you'd be better off using monomac than gtk#. Mono develop is written in gtk# and cut and paste works just fine on osx.
If your app is something others will use, for the best experience you write your app in such a way that the UI is as swappable as possible. Then write a Mac UI with monomac and a Windows UI with WPF. If it's just you who needs it, then Gtk# might be ok for standard things. But don't expect good os integration without work.
