Sometimes, a joke is so utterly ridiculous... that it becomes believable.

And sometimes -- sometimes -- that believably ridiculous joke gets repeated so often that the mass populace begins to accept it as fact.

Such is the case of "The C++ Mascot".

The story, as written on The Uncyclopedia (a satire website), is thus:

And here is the image of Keith, the "C++ Mascot":

Obviously a joke, right?  No sane person would ever take this seriously... right?

Turns out that this joke has been repeated often enough that it has begun to be believed by many.

Take a few minutes, on any major social media platform (from Twitter to Reddit), and do a few searches -- you will quickly find a pile of posts from people who appear (without irony or tongue-in-cheek-ness) to truly believe "Keith" is the C++ mascot.

Now, before we continue I need to make two statements:

1. Explaining jokes is one of the worst things a human can do.  Never explain jokes.
2. People believing that a made up bit of satire is, in fact, true... simply makes that satire even better.  It is glorious.

That said... there are several instances where jokes -- in the computing world -- have been repeated so often that people have begun to accept them as truth.  As a verified, factual part of computing history.

One great example is the mythical story of "The first computer bug" -- that the term "bug" was named after an actual moth that flew into a computer.  A joke story which, despite being disproven, remains firmly entrenched as a "fact" in the minds of computer enthusiasts and journalists everywhere.

So, in an attempt to get ahead of yet another joke becoming an accepted "fact" in computer history, The Lunduke Journal is here to set the record straight.  Begrudgingly.

Keith is not the C++ mascot

That diseased rat?

He's not the C++ mascot.

In fact, C++ has no mascot at all.

Diseased or otherwise.

Richard Stallman did not draw Keith

And that line where the C++ mascot was "drawn by Richard Stallman"?

That's not true either.  Funny, to be sure.  But not true.

Just to make sure -- because, hey, maybe Stallman actually did draw it, right?  Who knows! -- I reached out to Richard and asked him directly.

This is, word for word, what he told The Lunduke Journal:

"That is incorrect -- it was not drawn by me.  (I would be unable to draw that; I am not very good at drawing.)

I have a low opinion of C++, but I don't hate it.

 

Dr Richard Stallman"

Does Stallman like C++?  No.  No, he does not.

But he did not draw the diseased rat.

I know.  I just ruined the joke.

Trust me, I feel bad about being that guy.  The guy that reads a great bit of satire and proceeds to hop on the Internet to tell folks, "Well, actually, that is factually incorrect."

Man.  That guy is annoying.

But, in this case, it had to be done.  Too many people were believing it.  This diseased rat was beginning to reach a point of factual acceptance by a large number of nerds.

Before long, it would become as widely accepted as that story about the first computer bug -- and the true history of computing would continue to erode ever further.

Sure.  The notion of people -- years from now -- reading how "Keith, the diseased rat drawn by Richard Stallman is the mascot for C++" in their textbooks... well... that's just funny.  One heck of a solid joke.

But the Computer Historian in me just can't let that happen.

So I'm here.  To be the party pooper.

Join the Lunduke Community

To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today

Sign Up