hile 2 percent of total makeup launch products in the first half of 2015 were part of collaborations, this amount increased by 8 percentage points in the first half of 2016.

Hard-approach programmers treat a sprite more like an abstract entity -- a Newtonian particle -- while soft-approach programmers treat it more like a physical object -- a dab of paint or a cardboard cutout.

Amy proposes that Heinz talk things over with the druggist, who surely will not want anyone to die.

When programming, bricoleurs tend to prefer the transparent style, planners the opaque, but the program's authorship is a critical variable in this preference.

As Anne programs, she uses analogies with traditional art materials. When you want to hide something on a canvas, you paint it out, you cover it over with something that looks like the background. Anne uses this technique to solve her programming problem. She lets each bird keep its color, but she makes her program "hide" it by placing a screen over it. Anne designs a sprite that will screen the bird when she doesn't want it seen, a sky-colored screen that makes the bird disappear. Anne is programming a computer, but she is thinking like a painter.

In cooking, this would be the style of chefs who don't follow recipes but a series of decisions made as a function of how things taste.

For planners, getting a program to work is like "saying one's piece"; for bricoleurs, it is more like a conversation than a monologue.

They are not drawn to structured programming; their work at the computer is marked by a desire to play with the elements of the program, to move them around almost as though they were material elements -- the words in a sentence, the notes on a keyboard, the elements of a collage

Observation of the soft approach to programming calls into question deeply entrenched assumptions about the classification and value of different ways of knowing

They are not computer phobic, they don't need to stay away because of fear or panic. But they are computer reticent. They want to stay away, because the computer has come to symbolize an alien way of thinking. They learn to get by. And they learn to keep a certain distance. One of its symptoms is the language with which they neutralize the computer as they deny the possibility of using it creatively. Recall how Lisa dismissed it as "just a tool."

Both deny who they are in order to succeed.

When she builds large programs she prefers to write her own smaller "building block" procedures even though she could use prepackaged ones from a program library; she resents the latter's opacity. Her teachers chide her, insisting that her demand for transparency is making her work more difficult; Lisa perseveres, insisting that this is what it takes for her to feel comfortable with computers.

She was in trouble, but her difficulty expressed a strength, not a weakness.

And when you yourself program (an activity within the reach of everyone), you can experience the degree to which your style of solving logical problems is very much your own.

Since the prevailing image of the computer is that of a logical machine, and since programming is seen as a technical and mathematical activity, the existence of anything but an analytic approach in this area makes a dramatic argument for pluralism.

Here we address sources of exclusion determined not by rules that keep women out, but by ways of thinking that make them reluctant to join in. Our central thesis is that equal access to even the most basic elements of computation requires an epistemological pluralism, accepting the validity of multiple ways of knowing and thinking.

talking about more than women and more than computers.

——

——

—