Jargons of Info Tech industry

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Xah Lee, Aug 12, 2005.

  1. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    Jargons of Info Tech industry

    (A Love of Jargons)

    Xah Lee, 2002 Feb

    People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious jargons.
    The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous jargons, such
    as in the Unix & Perl community. Unlike mathematicians, where in
    mathematics there are no fewer jargons but each and every one are
    absolutely necessary. For example, polytope, manifold,
    injection/bijection/surjection, group/ring/field.., homological,
    projective, pencil, bundle, lattice, affine, topology, isomorphism,
    isometry, homeomorphism, aleph-0, fractal, supremum/infimum, simplex,
    matrix, quaternions, derivative/integral, ... and so on. Each and every
    one of these captures a concept, for which practical and theoretical
    considerations made the terms a necessity. Often there are synonyms for
    them because of historical developments, but never “jargons for
    jargon's sake†because mathematicians hate bloats and irrelevance.

    The jargon-soaked stupidity in computing field can be grouped into
    classes. First of all, there are jargons for marketing purposes. Thus
    you have Mac OS “Xâ€, Windows “XPâ€, Sun OS to Solaris and the
    versioning confusion of 4.x to 7 to 8 and also the so called
    “Platform†instead of OS. One flagrant example is Sun Microsystem's
    Java stuff. Oak, Java, JDK, JSDK, J2EE, J2SE enterprise edition or no,
    from java 1.x to 1.2 == Java 2 now 1.3, JavaOne, JFC, Jini, JavaBeans,
    entity Beans, Awk, Swing... fucking stupid Java and **** Sun
    Microsystems. This is just one example of Jargon hodgepodge of one
    single commercial entity. Marketing jargons cannot be avoided in modern
    society. They abound outside computing field too. The Jargons of
    marketing came from business practice, and they can be excusable
    because they are kinda a necessity or can be considered as a naturally
    evolved strategy for attracting attention in a laissez-faire economy
    system.

    The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
    which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name Unix
    & Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix is
    supposed to be opposed of Multics and hints on the offensive and
    tasteless term eunuchs. PERL is cooked up to be “Practical Extraction
    & Reporting Language†and for the precise marketing drama of being
    also “Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Listerâ€. These types of
    jargons exudes juvenile humor. Cheesiness and low-taste is their
    hall-mark. If you are familiar with unixism and perl programing, you'll
    find tons and tons of such jargons embraced and verbalized by unix &
    perl lovers. e.g. grep, glob, shell, pipe, man, regex, more, less,
    tarball, shebang, Schwartzian Transform, croak, bless, interpolation,
    TIMTOWTDI, DWIM, RFC, RTFM, I-ANAL, YMMV and so on.

    There is another class of jargon moronicity, which i find them most
    damaging to society, are jargons or spurious and vague terms used and
    brandished about by programers that we see and hear daily among design
    meetings, online tech group postings, or even in lots of computing
    textbooks or tutorials. I think the reason for these, is that these
    massive body of average programers usually don't have much knowledge of
    significant mathematics, yet they are capable of technical thinking
    that is not too abstract, thus you ends up with these people defining
    or hatching terms a-dime-a-dozen that's vague, context dependent,
    vacuous, and their commonality are often a result of sopho-morons
    trying to sound big.

    Here are some examples of the terms in question:

    • anonymous functions or lambda or lamba function
    • closure
    • exceptions (as in Java)
    • list, array, vector, aggregate
    • hash (or hash table) ↠fantastically stupid
    • rehash (as in csh or tcsh)
    • regular expression (as in regex, grep, egrep, fgrep)
    • name space (as in Scheme vs Common Lisp debates)
    • depth first/breadth first (as in tree traversing.)
    • operator
    • operator overloading
    • polymorphism
    • inheritance
    • first class objects
    • pointers, references
    • tail recursion

    My time is limited, so i'll just give a brief explanation of my thesis
    on selective few of these examples among the umpteen.

    In a branch of math called lambda calculus, in which much theories of
    computation are based on, is the origin of the jargon _lambda function_
    that is so frequently reciprocated by advanced programering donkeys. In
    practice, a subroutine without side-effects is supposed to be what
    “lambda function†means. Functional languages often can define them
    without assigning them to some variable (name), therefore the
    “function without side-effects†are also called “anonymous
    functionsâ€. One can see that these are two distinct concepts. If
    mathematicians are designing computer languages, they would probably
    just called such thing _pure functions_. The term conveys the meaning,
    without the “lamba†abstruseness. (in fact, the mathematics
    oriented language Mathematica refers to lambda function as pure
    function, with the keyword Function.) Because most programers are
    sopho-morons who are less capable of clear thinking but nevertheless
    possess human vanity, we can see that they have not adopted the clear
    and fitting term, but instead you see lambda function this and that
    obfuscations dropping from their mouths constantly.

    Now the term “closure†can and indeed have meant several things in
    the computing field. The most common is for it to mean a subroutine
    that holds some memory but without some disadvantages of modifying a
    global variable. Usually such is a feature of a programing language.
    When taken to extreme, we have the what's called Object Oriented
    Programing methodology and languages. The other meaning of
    “closure†i have seen in text books, is for it to indicate that the
    things in the language is “closed†under the operations of the
    language. For example, for some languages you can apply operations or
    subroutines to any thing in the language. (These languages are often
    what's called “dynamic typing†or “typelessâ€). However, in
    other languages, things have types and cannot be passed around
    subroutines or operators arbitrarily. One can see that the term
    “closure†is quite vague in conveying its meaning. The term
    nevertheless is very popular among talkative programers and dense
    tutorials, precisely because it is vague and mysterious. These
    pseudo-wit living zombies, never thought for a moment that they are
    using a moronic term, mostly because they never clearly understand the
    concepts behind the term among the contexts. One can particular see
    this exhibition among Perl programers. (for an example of the
    fantastically stupid write-up on closure by the Perl folks, see
    “perldoc perlfaq7†and “perldoc perlrefâ€.)

    in the so-called “high-level†computing languages, there are often
    data types that's some kind of a collection. The most illustrative is
    LISt Processing language's lists. Essentially, the essential concept is
    that the language can treat a collection of things as if it's a single
    entity. As computer languages evolve, such collection entity feature
    also diversified, from syntax to semantics to implementation. Thus,
    beside lists, there are also terms like vector, array, matrix, tree,
    hash/“hash tableâ€/dictionary. Often each particular term is to
    convey a particular implementation of collection so that it has certain
    properties to facilitate specialized uses of such groupy. The Java
    language has such groupy that can illustrate the point well. In Java,
    there are these hierarchy of collection-type of things:

    Collection
    Set (AbstractSet, HashSet)
    SortedSet (TreeSet)
    List (AbstractList, LinkedList, Vector, ArrayList)

    Map (AbstractMap, HashMap, Hashtable)
    SortedMap (TreeMap)

    The words without parenthesis are Java Interfaces, and ones in are
    implementations. The interface hold a concept. The deeper the level,
    the more specific or specialized. The implementation carry out
    concepts. Different implementation gives different algorithmic
    properties. Essentially, these hierarchies of Java show the potential
    complexity and confusion around groupy entities in computer languages.
    Now, among the programers we see daily, who never really thought out of
    these things, will attach their own specific meaning to
    list/array/vector/matrix/etc type of jargons in driveling and
    arguments, oblivious to any thought of formalizing what the **** they
    are really talking about. (one may think from the above tree-diagram
    that Java the language has at least put clear distinction to interface
    and implementation, whereas in my opinion they are one fantastic ****
    up too, in many respects.)

    ---------------------
    This post is archived at
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/jargons.html
    © Copyright 2002 by Xah Lee.

    Xah

    ∑ http://xahlee.org/
     
    Xah Lee, Aug 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Xah Lee wrote:

    > Jargons of Info Tech industry
    >
    > (A Love of Jargons)
    >
    > Xah Lee, 2002 Feb


    Congratulations, this time you managed to get to your second paragraph
    before your Tourette's kicked in.

    --
    Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
    San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
    Behind an able man there are always other able men.
    -- (a Chinese proverb)
     
    Erik Max Francis, Aug 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Xah Lee wrote:
    > Jargons of Info Tech industry
    >
    > (A Love of Jargons)
    >
    > Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
    >
    > People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious
    > jargons. The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous

    [...]

    Just for the records at Google et.al. in case someone stumbles across Xah's
    masterpieces in the future:
    Xah is very well known as the resident troll in many NGs and his
    'contributions' are less then useless.

    Best is to just ignore him.

    But for heaven's sake unless you want to embarrass yourself really badly
    don't take any of his postings serious because he has proven again and again
    that he has no clue whatsoever about computer science or programming.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Aug 12, 2005
    #3
  4. Xah Lee

    Roedy Green Guest

    On 11 Aug 2005 18:23:42 -0700, "Xah Lee" <> wrote or
    quoted :

    >The Jargons of
    >marketing came from business practice, and they can be excusable
    >because they are kinda a necessity or can be considered as a naturally
    >evolved strategy for attracting attention in a laissez-faire economy
    >system.


    Jargon is a name that hides what it does. The idea is those in the
    know can sound much more intelligent than they really are.

    In Java you have the JDK -- Java Development Kit. That is a pretty
    clear name for what it is.

    You have the JRE the Java Runtime Environment. I might have shortened
    it to Java Base.

    Oak, Tiger, Dragonfly etc are internal codenames. They are really
    nobody's business but Sun's.


    You have JAF -- Java Activation Framework. Now that's jargon. You have
    no idea knowing its name what it is for.

    JMF Java Media Framework could have been shortened to Java Media.

    JavaMail is pretty clear.

    Java Web Start is self-explanatory. Perhaps Java Web Launch would be
    a tiny bit clearer.

    J2EE Java 2 Enterprise Edition. The 2 is a lot of Bullshit. Sun
    marketing people keep trying to screw with the logical progression of
    version numbers. The edition says nothing, and the Enterprise gives
    you a hint this is not for hobbyist programmers.


    J2SE Java 2 Standard Edition. This is needlessly wordy. they could
    have called it Standard Java.

    If you use short names then you don't need acronyms. Without
    acronyms, names can be self-explanatory.

    I think your beef is not with Jargon, but with so many acronyms.
     
    Roedy Green, Aug 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Roedy Green <> writes:
    > On 11 Aug 2005 18:23:42 -0700, "Xah Lee" <> wrote or
    > quoted :

    [ the usual nonsense ]
    >
    > Jargon [...]

    [snip]

    Take a look at the Newsgroups: line. Then look for other articles Xah
    Lee has posted, and see if you can make sense of any of them. If you
    must post a followup, at least limit the newsgroups to those where it
    might be topical.

    +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
    | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
    | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
    | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
    | Thank you, | ( (_) )
    | Management | /`-vvv-'\
    +-------------------+ / \
    | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
    | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
    @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
    \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
    \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    ==============================================================

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Aug 12, 2005
    #5
  6. Jürgen Exner wrote:
    > Just for the records at Google et.al. in case someone stumbles across Xah's
    > masterpieces in the future:
    > Xah is very well known as the resident troll in many NGs and his
    > 'contributions' are less then useless.


    And you are the resident troll-reply service, posting this reply every time?

    > Best is to just ignore him.


    You just broke that rule.

    > But for heaven's sake unless you want to embarrass yourself really badly
    > don't take any of his postings serious because he has proven again and again
    > that he has no clue whatsoever about computer science or programming.


    Fine. Many people don't. Whoever takes the time to read Xah's postings
    (I don't) will probably be able to find that out by himself.

    --
    I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
    all day long and I assume they deserve it.
    Dogbert
     
    Ulrich Hobelmann, Aug 12, 2005
    #6
  7. Xah Lee wrote:
    > [...]
    > My time is limited, so i'll just give a brief explanation of my thesis
    > [...]

    This is what psychology calls a disordered self-perception.

    --
    "Thomas:Fritsch$ops:de".replace(':','.').replace('$','@')
     
    Thomas Fritsch, Aug 12, 2005
    #7
  8. "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    news:BATKe.19727$0d.11740@trnddc07...
    > Xah Lee wrote:
    >> Jargons of Info Tech industry
    >>
    >> (A Love of Jargons)
    >>
    >> Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
    >>
    >> People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious
    >> jargons. The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous

    > [...]
    >
    > Just for the records at Google et.al. in case someone stumbles across
    > Xah's
    > masterpieces in the future:
    > Xah is very well known as the resident troll in many NGs and his
    > 'contributions' are less then useless.


    He sent a lovely one to some of the language groups the other day,
    explaining why Jonathan Swift was a poor writer.
     
    Mike Schilling, Aug 12, 2005
    #8
  9. Xah Lee

    jan V Guest

    > Xah is very well known as the resident troll in many NGs and his
    'contributions' are less then useless.
    >
    > Best is to just ignore him.


    Did you know that some deranged people take sexual pleasure out of starting
    fires? Apparently some of the latest forest/bush fires in southern Europe
    were even started by firemen (with their pants down?).

    Maybe characters like Xah take some kind of sexual pleasure out of posting
    his kind of posts... the tought doesn't bear thinking, does it?
     
    jan V, Aug 12, 2005
    #9
  10. Xah Lee

    Guest

    "Mike Schilling" <> writes:

    > "Jürgen Exner" <> wrote in message
    > news:BATKe.19727$0d.11740@trnddc07...
    > > Xah Lee wrote:
    > >> Jargons of Info Tech industry
    > >>
    > >> (A Love of Jargons)
    > >>
    > >> Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
    > >>
    > >> People in the computing field like to spur the use of spurious
    > >> jargons. The less educated they are, the more they like extraneous

    > > [...]
    > >
    > > Just for the records at Google et.al. in case someone stumbles across
    > > Xah's
    > > masterpieces in the future:
    > > Xah is very well known as the resident troll in many NGs and his
    > > 'contributions' are less then useless.

    >
    > He sent a lovely one to some of the language groups the other day,
    > explaining why Jonathan Swift was a poor writer.


    That's remarkable, considering he doesn't realize "jargon" is a
    collective noun.

    Joe
     
    , Aug 12, 2005
    #10
  11. jan V wrote:
    > Did you know that some deranged people take sexual pleasure out of starting
    > fires? Apparently some of the latest forest/bush fires in southern Europe
    > were even started by firemen (with their pants down?).


    I've only heard of people trying to extinguish fires with their pants
    down. Oh well...

    --
    I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people
    all day long and I assume they deserve it.
    Dogbert
     
    Ulrich Hobelmann, Aug 12, 2005
    #11
  12. Xah Lee

    Guest

    In comp.lang.perl.misc Xah Lee <> wrote:
    > The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
    > which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name Unix
    > & Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix is
    > supposed to be opposed of Multics and hints on the offensive and
    > tasteless term eunuchs.


    Now that connexion is a product of a truely warped mind.

    Axel
     
    , Aug 12, 2005
    #12
  13. writes:

    >In comp.lang.perl.misc Xah Lee <> wrote:
    >> The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
    >> which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name Unix
    >> & Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix is
    >> supposed to be opposed of Multics and hints on the offensive and
    >> tasteless term eunuchs.

    >
    >Now that connexion is a product of a truely warped mind.


    and one devoid of any trace of humour.

    mkb.
     
    Matthias Buelow, Aug 12, 2005
    #13
  14. Xah Lee

    gene tani Guest

    the other canonical responses:

    - killfile killfile killfile
    - nothing to see here ... keep moving
    - don't cross-post your replies, don't rile the perl users.
     
    gene tani, Aug 12, 2005
    #14
  15. Xah Lee

    CBFalconer Guest

    wrote:
    > In comp.lang.perl.misc Xah Lee <> wrote:
    >
    >> The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners,
    >> of which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary. For example, the name
    >> Unix & Perl themselves are good examples of buzzing jargons. Unix is
    >> supposed to be opposed of Multics and hints on the offensive and
    >> tasteless term eunuchs.

    >
    > Now that connexion is a product of a truely warped mind.


    If you really must feed the troll, please at least set follow-ups
    to cut things back.

    --
    "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
    the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
    "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
    "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
     
    CBFalconer, Aug 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Xah Lee

    Alex Guest

    Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry ... and Xah Lee (I mean Jerry)Springer

    Xah Lee wrote:
    > Jargons of Info Tech industry
    >
    > (A Love of Jargons)
    >
    > Xah Lee, 2002 Feb
    >
    > The jargon-soaked stupidity in computing field can be grouped into
    > classes <SNIP> ... <SNIP> One flagrant example is Sun Microsystem's
    > Java stuff <SNIP> ... <SNIP> fucking stupid Java and **** Sun
    > Microsystems. This is just one example of Jargon hodgepodge of one
    > single commercial entity.
    >
    > The other class of jargon stupidity is from computing practitioners, of
    > which the Unix/Perl community is exemplary <SNIP> ... <SNIP> These types of
    > jargons exudes juvenile humor. Cheesiness and low-taste is their
    > hall-mark.
    >
    > There is another class of jargon moronicity, which i find them most
    > damaging to society, <SNIP> ... <SNIP> I think the reason for these, is that these
    > massive body of average programers usually don't have much knowledge of
    > significant mathematics, <SNIP> ... <SNIP> these people defining
    > or hatching terms <SNIP> ... <SNIP> are often a result of sopho-morons
    > trying to sound big.
    >

    <SNIP> ... <SNIP> Because most programers are
    > sopho-morons who are less capable of clear thinking but nevertheless
    > possess human vanity, <SNIP> ... <SNIP>
    >

    <SNIP> ... <SNIP> One can see that the term
    > “closure†is quite vague in conveying its meaning. The term
    > nevertheless is very popular among talkative programers and dense
    > tutorials, precisely because it is vague and mysterious. These
    > pseudo-wit living zombies, never thought for a moment that they are
    > using a moronic term, <SNIP> ... <SNIP> (for an example of the
    > fantastically stupid write-up on closure by the Perl folks <SNIP> ... <SNIP>
    >

    <SNIP> ... <SNIP>
    >

    <SNIP> ... <SNIP> (one may think from the above tree-diagram
    > that Java the language has at least put clear distinction to interface
    > and implementation, whereas in my opinion they are one fantastic ****
    > up too, in many respects.)
    >


    I've extracted the preceding castigating snippets from Mr. Lee's Jargon
    "thesis". :)) When reciprocated upon his own posts; one could offer up
    the proverb, "he who lives in glass houses should not throw stones."

    His inflammatory rhetoric - light on facts, weak in application, and
    generously peppered with self-aggrandizing insults - would probably
    offend Jerry Springer by comparison.

    Perhaps the "professor" should more carefully scrutinize himself before
    attempting to castigate others, less he acquire the reputation of a
    hypocrite, e.g. -
    "are often a result of sopho-morons trying to sound big.";
    "who are less capable of clear thinking but nevertheless possess
    human vanity";
    "These types of jargons exudes juvenile humor.";
    "Cheesiness and low-taste is their hall-mark."

    Elementary courses in Critical Reasoning, Topical Research, Grammar,
    Creative Writing, and Technical Writing also seem warranted.

    A little one on one time with a mental health practitioner probably
    wouldn't hurt either. :))

    P.S. Until then, does anyones else deem it appropriate to give
    "professor" Lee the nickname "Xah Lee Springer"?
     
    Alex, Aug 14, 2005
    #16
  17. Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry ... and Xah Lee (I mean Jerry)Springer

    Alex <> writes:
    > Xah Lee wrote:

    [SSSNNNIIIPPP!!!]
    > I've extracted the preceding castigating snippets from Mr. Lee's
    > Jargon "thesis".

    [SSSNNNIIIPPP!!!]

    *Please stop posting followups to this off-topic nonsense. Just
    ignore it. Responding to spam is spam; responding to a troll gives
    him exactly what he wants and annoys the heck out of the rest of us.

    +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
    | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
    | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
    | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
    | Thank you, | ( (_) )
    | Management | /`-vvv-'\
    +-------------------+ / \
    | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
    | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
    @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
    \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
    \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    ==============================================================

    Followups redirected appropriately.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Aug 14, 2005
    #17
  18. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    Unix, RFC, and Line Truncation

    [Note: unix tradition requires that a return be inserted at every 70
    characters in email messages or so so that each line are less than 80
    characters. Unixers made this as a requirement into an RFC document.]

    Xah Lee, 20020511

    This truncation of lines business is a hatred of mine, from email
    formatting to formatting of program codes. I have been fighting with
    the unix slew of morons about the line cut for years. The unix morons
    are the number one excuse expert, that whenever in an argument they'll
    mention some RFC “specificationsâ€. (RFC = Really Fucking Common,
    invented by mostly unix folks in the 70s.)

    the unix morons, think that the world should truncate lines just like
    their incompetent operating system silently truncate lines (and it
    still DOES, folks! e.g. ps, tar, tcsh.) Around 1998 when i was using
    Outlook Express or Eudora before that, i remember i can set lines to
    not hard-wrap, and i did. Boy that always pissed the unix blockheads.
    In their diddly eyes and lousy email software, i'm breaking standards,
    making things hard to read, and being a stupid ass. Their brain fail to
    see what unix ways are not capable of. These guys are the same slew of
    morons who cry in pain about how the web should not commercialize
    (circa 1996), and email should be text only (anti-MIME, circa 1995),
    and lynx is the best browser (circa 1995), and GUI is for sissys and
    mouse is for pussies and Apple computer is for kids (circa 1987).

    There is no reason for a paragraph encoding to be splattered with end
    of line characters, nor the human labor expended. There is reason for
    paragraphs to be displayed not too wide, and that is readability. What
    the unixer could not get clear of is a distinction of concepts. Because
    their fantastically hacked-up operating system operate by the principle
    that lines should not be some 80 chars or else it will be truncated and
    *silently* too, thus it became _necessarily_ their _habit_ and thought
    that line truncation business is natural and a human duty. Unknown of
    these setups, the unix geeks go by their presumption that all text
    should be hard wrapped, as if parameters should be hard-coded.

    I recall, two particular unix hotshots who bugged me about the line
    truncations business is the Perl priest Tom Christiansen, who used to
    reside over comp.lang.perl.*, and another unix jockey Chris Nandor, who
    was a MacPerl proponent now the main maintainer. It is not a
    coincidence that the people who go out of their way to complain about
    any “format=flowed†or softwrapped or logically-formatted lines in
    emails are always the unixers. The unix twits will start a flame war
    over a petty formatting issue, because it's unix's training to bent
    over pettiness, not to mention they are the ones who are retarded on
    the issue of line truncation.

    As i have alluded to above, there are serious problems with the
    line-truncation ways of thinking. The gist is that it is a form of
    physical formatting as opposed to logical. (think softwrap vs hardwrap,
    parameter vs hard-code) Those who are familiar with the history or
    reason for SGML and HTML should understand the problem. Many of you
    familiar with drive of evolution of HTML from 1995 days to today's CSS
    & XML should also understand the issue. We wish to encode information,
    and be flexible about representation, not botching info into one
    particular representation.

    The harm done by the unixers to society is of a long lasting and
    pervasive nature. First is the RFC, which serves as the mob's standard,
    which requires that every emailer should be broken like unix, so that
    unix can process them without problems. **** unix and **** unix geeks.
    Secondly, it drains human labor. Right this second there are hundreds
    of people pressing returns or fixing jagged lines unnecessarily.
    Thinking and computer could have done that for us, if not for fucking
    stupid unix and its people. Thirdly, a generation of programs and
    programer's times are wasted over tools that mutilate paragraphs into
    pieces. (in emacs, there's fill-paragraph etc, and in BBEdit it's just
    called “Hard Wrapâ€) Fourthly, physical formatting ultimately
    multiply the process required on the data, as we can see in emails,
    especially in combination with the stupid quote convention: “>â€
    (that's another unix invention.). But most importantly is that the
    hard-liners instilled a bad notion, a confusion, that generated a
    entire generation of utterly stupid programing languages and monkey
    coders, starting with unix's C language.

    As of 200506, the following two sites shows that
    as late as 2001, unix tool tar (BSD) still truncate long file names.
    • http://www.sourcekeg.co.uk/www.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/mac-os-x.html
    (local copy)
    http://nrg.cs.usm.my/~tcwan/macosx_essentials.htm
    (local copy)

    --------------------
    This post is archived at:
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/truncate_line.html

    Xah

    ∑ http://xahlee.org/
     
    Xah Lee, Aug 22, 2005
    #18
  19. "Xah Lee" <> writes:
    [the usual]

    +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
    | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
    | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
    | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
    | Thank you, | ( (_) )
    | Management | /`-vvv-'\
    +-------------------+ / \
    | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
    | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
    @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
    \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
    \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    ==============================================================

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Aug 22, 2005
    #19
  20. Xah Lee

    jan V Guest

    > +-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
    > | PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
    > | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
    > | | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
    > | Thank you, | ( (_) )
    > | Management | /`-vvv-'\
    > +-------------------+ / \
    > | | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
    > | | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
    > @x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
    > \||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
    > \||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
    > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\


    Please don't use ASCII art... not everyone uses a fixed-width font for his
    newsreader...............
    (your picture looks all mangled here)
     
    jan V, Aug 22, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Xah Lee

    Jargons of Info Tech industry

    Xah Lee, Aug 12, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    356
    Views:
    6,551
    noah bedford
    Oct 23, 2005
  2. Steve
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    409
    David Schwartz
    Oct 19, 2005
  3. Xah Lee

    Jargons of Info Tech industry

    Xah Lee, Aug 12, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    385
    Views:
    4,813
    noah bedford
    Oct 23, 2005
  4. Steve

    Jargons of Info Tech industry

    Steve, Oct 19, 2005, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    297
    David Schwartz
    Oct 19, 2005
  5. Steve

    Jargons of Info Tech industry

    Steve, Oct 19, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    347
    David Schwartz
    Oct 19, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page