Bug 217778

Summary: Inclusive software: Remove instances of "dumb" from the code
Product: WebKit Reporter: Simon Fraser (smfr) <simon.fraser>
Component: Web Template FrameworkAssignee: Alex Christensen <achristensen>
Status: RESOLVED FIXED    
Severity: Normal CC: achristensen, annulen, bdakin, benjamin, cdumez, changseok, cmarcelo, darin, eric.carlson, esprehn+autocc, ews-watchlist, glenn, gyuyoung.kim, jbedard, jer.noble, kangil.han, keith_miller, kondapallykalyan, mark.lam, mmaxfield, msaboff, pdr, philipj, rniwa, ryuan.choi, saam, sam, sergio, simon.fraser, tzagallo, webkit-bug-importer
Priority: P2 Keywords: InRadar
Version: Safari Technology Preview   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch simon.fraser: review+

Simon Fraser (smfr)
Reported 2020-10-15 13:24:08 PDT
For inclusive software, we should avoid using the term "dumb" in the source. The most common one is DumbPtrTraits. There's also a few in JSC: emitDumbVirtualCall() etc.
Attachments
Patch (43.66 KB, patch)
2020-10-26 11:56 PDT, Alex Christensen 		simon.fraser: review+
DetailsFormatted DiffDiff
View All Add attachment proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Radar WebKit Bug Importer
Comment 1 2020-10-15 13:24:55 PDT
<rdar://problem/70349482>
Simon Fraser (smfr)
Comment 2 2020-10-22 14:05:00 PDT
report-non-inclusive-language should catch this.
Alex Christensen
Comment 3 2020-10-26 11:56:55 PDT
Created attachment 412343 [details] Patch
Keith Miller
Comment 4 2020-10-26 12:13:12 PDT
Can I get some clarification as to why we think this is important and what the logic is behind it? I (and perhaps others) actually don't know, although I have an idea. For example, I don't know if we should also remove references to "dummy" since "dummy" and "dumb" share the same origin? I think it would be useful for people entering the project to be able to learn about inclusivity without having to ask someone.
Alex Christensen
Comment 5 2020-10-26 12:18:00 PDT
"Dumb" is clearly a term that refers to someone who is unable to speak. I'm not sure about "Dummy"
Keith Miller
Comment 6 2020-10-26 12:41:46 PDT
(In reply to Alex Christensen from comment #5) > "Dumb" is clearly a term that refers to someone who is unable to speak. I'm > not sure about "Dummy" I wouldn't say clearly since I think only native English speakers (and probably only a subset of them) know about the origin of the word "dumb" or its ties to speaking. As far as I know, "dummy" is/was the noun version of "dumb", although, its relation to speaking is now considered archaic. Anyway, I'm not against this change, I just think it's important to create an easy to find description about which words we allow or not and why. Especially for people contributing that don't speak English as a first language and may have been taught terminology we'd like to avoid.
Alex Christensen
Comment 7 2020-10-26 13:09:29 PDT
http://trac.webkit.org/r268993
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 8 2020-10-28 20:40:10 PDT
Thank you! This has really bothered me for some time.
Ryosuke Niwa
Comment 9 2020-10-28 20:49:14 PDT
(In reply to Keith Miller from comment #4) > Can I get some clarification as to why we think this is important and what > the logic is behind it? I (and perhaps others) actually don't know, although > I have an idea. For example, I don't know if we should also remove > references to "dummy" since "dummy" and "dumb" share the same origin? In general, words like "stupid", "dumb", "retard", etc... are considered hurtful / harmful language for someone with intellectual disabilities and their friends and family. Your point about dummy is valid though. We should probably use some other term like "mock" or "sample".
Myles C. Maxfield
Comment 10 2021-01-13 09:16:47 PST
By the way, this has broken binary compatibility with open-source builds (because those builds use the system WebInspector.framework).
Alex Christensen
Comment 11 2021-01-13 10:46:14 PST
What symbol is missing? We have added symbol stubs for this before.
Myles C. Maxfield
Comment 12 2021-01-13 17:28:42 PST
(In reply to Alex Christensen from comment #11) > What symbol is missing? We have added symbol stubs for this before. The rename of RefPtr's template type means any function that accepts a RefPtr no longer matches what the caller looks for.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.