The Importance of Terminology's Quality

[George Neuner]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 08 May 2008 03:25:54 -0700,
usenet1.3.CalRo bert@SpamGourme t.Com (Robert Maas,
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t) wrote:

>From: "xah...@gmail.c om" <xah...@gmail.c om>
>the importance of naming of functions.

>

>... [take] a keyword and ask a wide
>audience, who doesn't know about the language or even unfamiliar of
>computer programing, to guess what it means.

This is a dumb idea ...

>Better would be to reverse the question: Ask
>random people on the street what they would like to call these
>concepts:

.... and this one is even dumber.

Terms don't exist in a vacuum - they exist to facilitate communication
within a particular knowledge or skill domain. For example, English
is only meaningful to those who speak English. The opinions of random
people who have no relevant domain knowledge are worthless.

Such a survey could only be meaningful if the survey population
already possessed some knowledge of programming, but were not already
aware of the particular terminology being surveyed.

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address

[Waylen Gumbal]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Sherman Pendley wrote:

kodifik@eurogar an.com writes:

PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:

I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit)
but posing an interesting matter of discussion.

>
It might be interesting in the abstract, but any such discussion, when
cross-posted to multiple language groups on usenet, will inevitably
devolve into a flamewar as proponents of the various languages argue
about which language better expresses the ideas being talked about.
It's like a law of usenet or something.
>
If Xah wanted an interesting discussion, he could have posted this to
one language-neutral group such as comp.programmin g. He doesn't want
that - he wants the multi-group flamefest.

Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as comp,programmin g
as you pointed out), so you actually reach more people by cross posting.
This is what I don't understand - everyone seems to assume that by cross
posting, one intends on start a "flamefest" , when in fact most such
"flamefests " are started by those who cannot bring themselves to
skipping over the topic that they so dislike.

--
wg

[Lew]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Waylen Gumbal wrote:

Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as comp,programmin g
as you pointed out), so you actually reach more people by cross posting.
This is what I don't understand - everyone seems to assume that by cross
posting, one intends on start a "flamefest" , when in fact most such
"flamefests " are started by those who cannot bring themselves to
skipping over the topic that they so dislike.

It's not an assumption in Xah Lee's case. He spams newsgroups irregularly
with rehashed essays from years ago, and a number of people are just tired of
him. Don't blame the victims for the perpetrator's actions, OK?

--
Lew

[Jürgen Exner]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

"Waylen Gumbal" <wgumgfy@gmail. comwrote:

>Sherman Pendley wrote:

>kodifik@eurogar an.com writes:

>
PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:

>Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as comp,programmin g
>as you pointed out), so you actually reach more people by cross posting.

You seem so have failed to grasp the concept of why Usenet is divided
into separate groups in the first place.

>This is what I don't understand - everyone seems to assume that by cross
>posting, one intends on start a "flamefest" , when in fact most such
>"flamefests " are started by those who cannot bring themselves to
>skipping over the topic that they so dislike.

By your argument there is no need for individual groups in the first
place. We could just as well use a single "HereGoesEveryt hing" and just
skip over those topics that we so dislike.

jue

[Waylen Gumbal]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Lew wrote:

Waylen Gumbal wrote:

>Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as
>comp,programmi ng as you pointed out), so you actually reach more
>people by cross posting. This is what I don't understand - everyone
>seems to assume that by cross posting, one intends on start a
>"flamefest" , when in fact most such "flamefests " are started by
>those who cannot bring themselves to skipping over the topic that
>they so dislike.

>
It's not an assumption in Xah Lee's case. He spams newsgroups
irregularly with rehashed essays from years ago, and a number of
people are just tired of him.

I did not know this. One should obviously not do that.

Don't blame the victims for the perpetrator's actions, OK?

I'm not blaming any "victims", but I don't see anyone saying "read this
or else", so why not just skip the thread or toss the OP in your
killfile so you don't see his postings. If others want to discuss his
topics, who are you or I to tell them not to?

--
wg

[Waylen Gumbal]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Jürgen Exner wrote:

"Waylen Gumbal" <wgumgfy@gmail. comwrote:

Sherman Pendley wrote:

kodifik@eurogar an.com writes:

PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:

Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as
comp,programmin g as you pointed out), so you actually reach more
people by cross posting.

>
You seem so have failed to grasp the concept of why Usenet is divided
into separate groups in the first place.

No, not really. You keep group specific content in the applicable group
or groups only. But are there not times where content overlaps the
topics of multiple groups and to get maximum feedback, post to all
applicable groups (the keyword being "applicable ") ?

--
wg

[Jürgen Exner]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

"Waylen Gumbal" <wgumgfy@gmail. comwrote:

so why not just skip the thread or toss the OP in your
>killfile so you don't see his postings.

Done years ago.

>If others want to discuss his
>topics, who are you or I to tell them not to?

They are very welcome to do so in an appropriate NG for those topics.

jue

[George Neuner]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, "Waylen Gumbal" <wgumgfy@gmail. com>
wrote:

>Sherman Pendley wrote:

>kodifik@eurogar an.com writes:

>
PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
>
I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit)
but posing an interesting matter of discussion.

>>
>It might be interesting in the abstract, but any such discussion, when
>cross-posted to multiple language groups on usenet, will inevitably
>devolve into a flamewar as proponents of the various languages argue
>about which language better expresses the ideas being talked about.
>It's like a law of usenet or something.
>>
>If Xah wanted an interesting discussion, he could have posted this to
>one language-neutral group such as comp.programmin g. He doesn't want
>that - he wants the multi-group flamefest.

>
>Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as comp,programmin g
>as you pointed out), so you actually reach more people by cross posting.
>This is what I don't understand - everyone seems to assume that by cross
>posting, one intends on start a "flamefest" , when in fact most such
>"flamefests " are started by those who cannot bring themselves to
>skipping over the topic that they so dislike.

The problem is that many initial posts have topics that are misleading
or simplistic. Often an interesting discussion can start on some
point the initial poster never considered or meant to raise.

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address

[Rob Warnock]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

George Neuner <gneuner2/@/comcast.netwrot e:
+---------------
| Common Lisp doesn't have "filter".
+---------------

Of course it does! It just spells it REMOVE-IF-NOT!! ;-} ;-}

(remove-if-not #'oddp (iota 10))

(1 3 5 7 9)

(remove-if-not (lambda (x) (x 4)) (iota 10))

(5 6 7 8 9)

>

-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.or g>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607

[Waylen Gumbal]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

George Neuner wrote:

On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, "Waylen Gumbal" <wgumgfy@gmail. com>
wrote:

Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as
comp,programmin g as you pointed out), so you actually reach more
people by cross posting. This is what I don't understand - everyone
seems to assume that by cross posting, one intends on start a
"flamefest" , when in fact most such "flamefests " are started by
those who cannot bring themselves to skipping over the topic that
they so dislike.

>
The problem is that many initial posts have topics that are misleading
or simplistic. Often an interesting discussion can start on some
point the initial poster never considered or meant to raise.

Is this not a possibility for any topic, whether it's cross-posted or
not?


--
wg

[Lew]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Waylen Gumbal wrote:

George Neuner wrote:

>On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:38:44 -0700, "Waylen Gumbal" <wgumgfy@gmail. com>
>wrote:

>
>
>

>>Not everyone follows language-neutral groups (such as
>>comp,programm ing as you pointed out), so you actually reach more
>>people by cross posting. This is what I don't understand - everyone
>>seems to assume that by cross posting, one intends on start a
>>"flamefest" , when in fact most such "flamefests " are started by
>>those who cannot bring themselves to skipping over the topic that
>>they so dislike.

>The problem is that many initial posts have topics that are misleading
>or simplistic. Often an interesting discussion can start on some
>point the initial poster never considered or meant to raise.

>
Is this not a possibility for any topic, whether it's cross-posted or
not?

You guys are off topic. None of the million groups to which this message was
posted are about netiquette.

--
Lew

[Sherman Pendley]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Lew <lew@lewscanon. comwrites:

You guys are off topic. None of the million groups to which this
message was posted are about netiquette.

Netiquette has come up at one point or another in pretty much every
group I've ever read. It's pretty much a universal meta-topic.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

[Lew]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Sherman Pendley wrote:

Lew <lew@lewscanon. comwrites:
>

>You guys are off topic. None of the million groups to which this
>message was posted are about netiquette.

>
Netiquette has come up at one point or another in pretty much every
group I've ever read. It's pretty much a universal meta-topic.

Good. Then please have the courtesy not to include comp.lang.java. programmer
in this thread's distribution any longer.

--
Lew

[Lew]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

Sherman Pendley wrote:

Lew <lew@lewscanon. comwrites:
>

>You guys are off topic. None of the million groups to which this
>message was posted are about netiquette.

>
Netiquette has come up at one point or another in pretty much every
group I've ever read. It's pretty much a universal meta-topic.

Good, then please have the courtesy not to include comp.lang.java. programmer
in the distribution for this thread any longer.

--
Lew

[George Neuner]

Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:45:26 -0500, rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) wrote:

>George Neuner <gneuner2/@/comcast.netwrot e:
>

>>On Wed, 7 May 2008 16:13:36 -0700 (PDT), "xahlee@gmail.c om"
>><xahlee@gmail .comwrote:

>

>>>• Functions [in Mathematica] that takes elements out of list
>>>are variously named First, Rest, Last, Extract, Part, Take,
>>>Select, Cases, DeleteCases... as opposed to “car”, “cdr”,
>>>“filter”, “filter”, “pop”, “shift”, “unshift”, in lisps and
>>>perl and other langs.

>

>>| Common Lisp doesn't have "filter".

>
>Of course it does! It just spells it REMOVE-IF-NOT!! ;-} ;-}

I know. You snipped the text I replied to.

Xah carelessly conflated functions snatched from various languages in
an attempt to make some point about intuitive naming. If he objects
to naming a function "filter", you can just imagine what he'd have to
say about remove-if[-not].

George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address