Seeing as this subthread has already derailed into a discussion of expression, I'll take this opportunity to express my disrespect for the new trend of using the word "disrespect" as a verb.
Could you explain how this is fair and effective? I would be interested in reading something other than bald assertions and cyclic argument ("it's bad because it's bad").
I mean, that's it. It's a rule of our society. That word means "black people that are weak, ignorant, servile and subhuman". We as a society have elected to make it a word that is forbidden in polite conversation unless you think the definition is accurate. Using it casually, even if you think you are not racist, is a signal that you don't care about other people's feelings.
> We as a society have elected to make it a word that is forbidden in polite conversation unless you think the definition is accurate.
We have done no such thing. Your statement is about as inaccurate and misleading as it could possibly be. The word you are talking about can be heard throughout TV shows, movies, and music. The vast majority of the time, it is not being used in the way you suggest. Your assertion that it is a "rule of our society" is as absurd as claiming the earth is flat.
You're being deliberately obtuse. It is used casually among African-Americans because they want to own it. It is used in works of fiction to portray exactly the type of negative image I used earlier. It is almost never used by non-Blacks with sincerity and when it is, it's considered deliberately racist. You can engage in some more nonsensical hair-splitting or you can choose to live by the rules of polite society.
If I can turn the tables on you, how about the fact that I can find pictures of naked people all over the internet and even some public places, yet if I walked into a meeting at work with no clothes on, I'd be fired? What an unbelievable conundrum!
The parent didn't ask for a link to a video, so a link to a video cannot be an answer to the question. Perhaps you could summarise or quote the part of the video that you believe answers the question.
That's a bit rich. There are other conventions in programming that you can't depend on technically but serve a real purpose. Identifier naming and comments are the first that come to mind.
If a language gives you a choice of token that has no semantic distinction then different people will adopt different semantics by convention.
As an aside, calling a tool "opinionated" is code for "my conventions are better than yours". That's fine if I don't have any conventions or I can't decide, but if I have decided, then it's just offensive.
Sometimes it's helpful just to have a decision; any decision, followed consistently, is better than no decision or continued debate. This is one of those situations.
So I don't read "opinionated" to necessarily mean "better than your opinions"; it's more like "makes decisions for you so you can avoid the cost of debating them."
And what if I have already incurred the cost and am happy with my decisions, and they differ to yours? I now cannot use your potentially useful tool, even if 90% of our decisions do accord with each other. That's disappointing.
Comments are often a side of poorly written code though. Ideallly the name and structure of the program should make the intent and purpose obvious, which eliminates the need for a lot of the comments people leave. Of course this isn’t always true, but if you’re using comments to compensate for bad/confusing code, you shouldn’t think you’re doing “the right thing”.
The conclusion is inescapable: they do not care. And that is why we should all find alternatives.