Idiotic programming style edicts
in [General Programming]
|
From: Walter Bushell on 29 Apr 2010 07:53 In article <hr9rm7129p7(a)news5.newsguy.com>, Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > Nick Keighley wrote: > > On 27 Apr, 06:39, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> ["Variadic" is barbaric, since it is not a word, > > > > never understand people who say this. > > They're idiots who can't be bothered to learn how English works. There > - mystery solved. > > The criteria for word-status in English are very liberal: an English > word is simply a series of letters used as a word in an English > phrase. There is no generally-recognized authority for the English > language, so there can't be any other constraints. And no, neither the > OED nor any other dictionary constitutes such an authority. > > Of course there are various subsets of English words, of the form > "English words recognized with the same general meaning among the > members of speech community X", and dictionaries can be useful in > defining those subsets. But so can other records of English usage. > Clearly we have ample records of the use of "variadic", so we can > establish that it is not only an English word, but one with a > generally-recognized meaning for at least one speech community > (loosely, those with a decent understanding of the C programming > language). Many people say verbing weirds language. Many others state that "ain't" ain't a word. YMMV. Some words are tabooed in some contexts. For example, politicians and people in the public eye usually avoid using the word "niggardly" even though it is a word of impeccable provenance. -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
From: Bernd Felsche on 29 Apr 2010 09:32 Huge <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-04-29, Walter Bushell <proto(a)panix.com> wrote: >> Some words are tabooed in some contexts. For example, politicians and >> people in the public eye usually avoid using the word "niggardly" even >> though it is a word of impeccable provenance. >How sad that one has to avoid using perfectly proper English because of >the ignorance of the mob. The mob needs to be castigated. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | If builders built buildings the way programmers X against HTML mail | wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that / \ and postings | came along would destroy civilization.
From: Walter Bushell on 29 Apr 2010 13:31 In article <hbeoa7xf8g.ln2(a)innovative.iinet.net.au>, Bernd Felsche <berfel(a)innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote: > Huge <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > >On 2010-04-29, Walter Bushell <proto(a)panix.com> wrote: > > >> Some words are tabooed in some contexts. For example, politicians and > >> people in the public eye usually avoid using the word "niggardly" even > >> though it is a word of impeccable provenance. > > >How sad that one has to avoid using perfectly proper English because of > >the ignorance of the mob. > > The mob needs to be castigated. If not castrated or spayed. -- A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
From: Michael Wojcik on 29 Apr 2010 14:12 Walter Bushell wrote: > In article <hr9rm7129p7(a)news5.newsguy.com>, > Michael Wojcik <mwojcik(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > >> The criteria for word-status in English are very liberal: an English >> word is simply a series of letters used as a word in an English >> phrase. There is no generally-recognized authority for the English >> language, so there can't be any other constraints. And no, neither the >> OED nor any other dictionary constitutes such an authority. > > Many others state that "ain't" ain't a word. Yet - astonishingly - their claims do not make it true. > YMMV. It would be surprising if it were a constant, no? -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University
From: Michael Wojcik on 29 Apr 2010 14:20
Huge wrote: > On 2010-04-29, Walter Bushell <proto(a)panix.com> wrote: > >> Some words are tabooed in some contexts. For example, politicians and >> people in the public eye usually avoid using the word "niggardly" even >> though it is a word of impeccable provenance. > > How sad that one has to avoid using perfectly proper English because of > the ignorance of the mob. Effective diction has always been a function of audience. And the opinions of audiences, in general, have always been strongly influenced by whim, ignorance, and error. To bemoan this is to complain about an essential feature of human communication. It sets you down the Lockean road toward a fantasy of an exact language. That ain't gonna happen, and it would be a Bad Thing if it did. -- Michael Wojcik Micro Focus Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University |