Xref: utzoo alt.folklore.computers:10438 comp.misc:11778
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cbmvax!snark!eric
From: eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.misc
Subject: The Jargon File v2.8.1, 22 MAR 1991, part 1 of 19
Message-ID: <1ZsDw9#0sRGg92DHlsW0wchzG6FD8WO=eric@snark.thyrsus.com>
Date: 22 Mar 91 23:37:23 GMT
Lines: 1004

Submitted-by: jargon@thyrsus.com
Archive-name: jargon/part01

---- Cut Here and feed the following to sh ----
#!/bin/sh
# This is jargon, a shell archive (produced by shar 3.49)
# To extract the files from this archive, save it to a file, remove
# everything above the "!/bin/sh" line above, and type "sh file_name".
#
# made 03/22/1991 19:04 UTC by jargon@thyrsus.com
# Source directory /usr2/eric/jargon
#
# existing files will NOT be overwritten unless -c is specified
#
# This is part 1 of a multipart archive                                    
# do not concatenate these parts, unpack them in order with /bin/sh        
#
# This shar contains:
# length  mode       name
# ------ ---------- ------------------------------------------
# 888333 -rw-r--r-- jargon.ascii
#
if test -r _shar_seq_.tmp; then
	echo 'Must unpack archives in sequence!'
	echo Please unpack part `cat _shar_seq_.tmp` next
	exit 1
fi
# ============= jargon.ascii ==============
if test -f 'jargon.ascii' -a X"$1" != X"-c"; then
	echo 'x - skipping jargon.ascii (File already exists)'
	rm -f _shar_wnt_.tmp
else
> _shar_wnt_.tmp
sed 's/^X//' << 'SHAR_EOF' > 'jargon.ascii' &&
X============ THIS IS THE JARGON FILE, VERSION 2.8.1, 22 MAR 1991 ============
X
XCopyright 1991 by Eric S. Raymond, all rights reserved.  Permission to
Xmake copies and derived works for non-profit use is granted as long as
Xthis notice is not removed.
X
XIntroduction
X************
X
XThis document is a collection of slang terms used by various
Xsubcultures of computer hackers.  Though some technical material is
Xincluded for background and flavor, it is not a technical dictionary;
Xwhat we describe here is the language hackers use among themselves for
Xfun, social communication, and technical debate within their communities.
X
XThe `hacker culture' is actually a loosely networked collection of
Xsubcultures that is nevertheless conscious of some important shared
Xexperiences, shared roots, and shared values.  It has its own myths,
Xheroes, villains, folk epics, in-jokes, taboos, and dreams.  Because
Xhackers as a group are particularly creative people who define
Xthemselves partly by rejection of `normal' values and working habits,
Xit has unusually rich and conscious traditions for an intentional
Xculture less than thirty-five years old.
X
XAs usual with slang, the special vocabulary of hackers helps hold
Xtheir culture together --- it helps hackers recognize each other's
Xplaces in the community and expresses shared values and experiences.
XAlso as usual, *not* knowing the slang (or using it
Xinappropriately) defines one as an outsider, a mundane, or (worst of
Xall in hackish vocabulary) possibly even a *suit*.  All human
Xcultures use slang in this threefold way --- as a tool of
Xcommunication, and of inclusion, and of exclusion.
X
XAmong hackers, though, slang has a subtler aspect paralleled perhaps
Xin the slang of jazz musicians and some kinds of fine artists but hard
Xto detect in most technical or scientific cultures; parts of it are
Xcode for shared states of *consciousness*.  There is a whole
Xrange of altered states and problem-solving mental stances basic to
Xhigh-level hacking which don't fit into conventional linguistic
Xreality any better than a Coltrane solo or one of Maurits Escher's
X`trompe l'oeil' compositions (Escher is a favorite of hackers),
Xand hacker slang encodes these subtleties in many unobvious ways.
XTake the distinction between a {kluge} and an {elegant} solution,
Xand the differing connotations attached to each, as a simple example.
XThe distinction is not only of engineering significance; it reaches
Xright back into the nature of the generative processes in program
Xdesign and asserts something important about two different kinds of
Xrelationship between the hacker and the hack.  Hacker slang is
Xunusually rich in implications of this kind, of overtones and
Xundertones that illuminate the hackish psyche.
X
XBut there is more.  Hackers, as a rule, love word-play and are very
Xconscious and inventive in their use of language.  These traits seem
Xto be common in young children, but the conformity-enforcing machine
Xwe are pleased to call an educational system bludgeons them out of
Xmost of us before adolescence.  Thus, linguistic invention in most
Xsubcultures of ours is a halting and largely unconscious process.
XHackers, by contrast, regard slang formation and use as a game to be
Xplayed for conscious pleasure.  Their inventions thus display an
Xalmost unique combination of the neotenous enjoyment of language-play
Xwith the discrimination of educated and powerful intelligence.
XFurther, the electronic media which knit them together are fluid,
X`hot' connections, well adapted to both the dissemination of new slang
Xand the ruthless culling of weak and superannuated specimens.  The
Xresults of this process give us perhaps a uniquely intense ans
Xaccelerated view of linguistic evolution in action.
X
XThe intensity and consciousness of hackish invention makes a
Xcompilation of hacker slang a particularly effective window into the
Xsurrounding culture --- and, in fact, this one is the latest version
Xof an evolving compilation called the `Jargon File' maintained by
Xhackers themselves for over fifteen years.  This one (like its
Xancestors) is primarily a lexicon, but also includes `topic entries'
Xwhich collect background or sidelight information on hacker culture
Xthat would be awkward to try to subsume under individual entries.
X
XThough the format is that of a reference, it is also intended that the
Xmaterial be enjoyable to browse or read straight through.  Even a
Xcomplete outsider should find at least a chuckle on nearly every page,
Xand much that is amusingly thought-provoking.  But it is also true
Xthat hackers use humorous word-play to make strong, sometime combative
Xstatements about what they feel.  Some of these entries reflect the
Xviews of opposing sides in disputes that have been genuinely
Xpassionate; this is deliberate.  We have not tried to moderate or
Xpretty up these disputes; rather we have attempted to ensure that
X*everyone's* sacred cows get gored, impartially.  Compromise is
Xnot particularly a hackish virtue, but the honest presentation of
Xdivergent viewpoints is.
X
XThe reader with minimal computer background who finds some references
Xincomprehensibly technical can safely ignore them.  We have not felt
Xit either necessary or desirable to eliminate all such; they, too,
Xcontribute flavor, and one of this document's major intended audiences
X(fledgling hackers already partway inside the culture) will benefit
Xfrom them.
X
XA selection of longer items of hacker folklore and humor are included
Xin Appendix A.  The `outside' reader's attention is particularly
Xdirected to Appendix B, the Portrait of J. Random Hacker.  Appendix C
Xis a bibliography of non-technical works which have either influenced
Xor described the hacker culture.
X
XBecause hackerdom is an intentional culture (one each individual must
Xchoose by action to join), one should not be surprised that the line
Xbetween description and influence can become more than a little
Xblurred.  Earlier Jargon File versions have played a central role in
Xspreading hacker language and the culture that goes with it to
Xsuccessively larger populations, and we hope and expect that this one
Xwill do likewise.
X
XOf Slang, Jargon, and Techspeak
X===============================
X
XLinguists usually refer to informal language as `slang' and reserve
Xthe term `jargon' for the technical vocabularies of various
Xoccupations.  However, the ancestor of this collection was called the
X`Jargon File' and hackish slang is traditionally `the jargon'.  When
Xtalking about the jargon there is therefore no convenient way to
Xdistinguish what a *linguist* would call hackers' jargon --- the
Xformal vocabulary they learn from textbooks, technical papers, and
Xmanuals.
X
XTo make a confused situation worse, the line between hackish slang and
Xtechnical programming and computer science vocabulary is fuzzy, and
Xshifts over time.  Further, this technical vocabulary is shared with a
Xwider technical culture of programmers, many of whom are not hackers
Xand do not speak or recognize hackish slang.
X
XAccordingly, this lexicon will try to be as precise as the facts of
Xusage permit about the distinctions between three categories:
X
X   * `slang': informal language from mainstream English or non-techical
X     subcultures (bikers, rock fans, surfers, etc.).
X   * `jargon': without qualifier, denotes informal `slangy' language
X     peculiar to hackers --- the subject of this lexicon.
X   * `techspeak': the formal technical vocabulary of programming,
X     computer science, electronics, and other fields connected to hacking.
X
XThis terminology will be consistently used throughout the remainder of
Xthis lexicon.
X
XThe jargon/techspeak distinction is the delicate one.  A lot of
Xtechspeak originated as jargon, and there is a steady continuing
Xuptake of jargon into techspeak.  On the other hand, a lot of jargon
Xarises from overgeneralization of techspeak terms (there is more about
Xthis in the `Jargon Construction' section below).
X
XIn general, we have considered techspeak any term which communicates
Xprimarily by a denotation well established in textbooks, technical
Xdictionaries, or standards documents.
X
XA few obviously techspeak terms (names of operating systems, languages
Xor documents) are listed when they are tied to hacker folklore that
Xisn't covered in formal sources, or sometimes to convey critical
Xhistorical background necessary to understand other entries to which
Xthey are cross-referenced.  Some other techspeak senses of jargon
Xwords have been listed in order to make the jargon senses clear; where
Xthe text does not specify that a straight technical sense is under
Xdiscussion, these are marked with `[techspeak]' as an etymology.  Many
Xentries have a sense #1 marked this way, with subsequent jargon
Xmeanings explained in terms of it.
X
XWe have also tried to indicate (where known) the apparent origins of
Xterms.  The results are probably the least reliable information in the
Xlexicon, for several reasons.  For one thing, it is well known that
Xmany hackish usages have been independently re-invented multiple
Xtimes, even among the more obscure and intricate neologisms.  It often
Xseems that the generative processes underlying hackish jargon
Xformation have an internal logic so powerful as to create substantial
Xparallelism across separate cultures and even in different languages!
XFor another, the networks tend to propagate innovations so quickly
Xthat `first use' is often impossible to pin down.  And, finally,
Xcompendia like this one alter what they observe by implicitly stamping
Xcultural approval on terms and widening their use.
X
XRevision History
X================
X
XThe original Jargon File was a collection of hacker jargon from
Xtechnical cultures including the MIT AI Lab, the Stanford AI lab
X(SAIL), and others of the old ARPANET AI/LISP/PDP-10 communities
Xincluding Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN), Carnegie-Mellon University
X(CMU), and Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI).
X
XThe Jargon File (hereafter referred to as `jargon-1' or `the File')
Xwas begun by Raphael Finkel at Stanford in 1975.  From this time until
Xthe plug was finally pulled on the SAIL computer in 1991 the File was
Xnamed AIWORD.RF[UP,DOC] there.  Some terms in it date back
Xconsiderably earlier ({frob} and some senses of {moby}, for
Xinstance, go back to the Tech Model Railroad Club and MIT and are
Xbelieved to date at least back to the early 1960s).  The revisions of
Xjargon-1 were all unnumbered and may be collectively considered
X`Version 1'.
X
XIn 1976, Mark Crispin brought the File to MIT; he and Guy Steele then
Xadded a first wave of new entries.
X
XIn 1976, Mark Crispin, having seen an announcement about the File on
Xthe SAIL computer, {FTP}ed a copy of the File to MIT.  He noticed that
Xit was hardly restricted to `AI words' and so stored the file on
Xhis directory as AI:MRC;SAIL JARGON.
X
XThe file was quickly renamed to JARGON > (the `>' means numbered with
Xa version number) as a flurry of enhancements were made by Mark
XCrispin and Guy L. Steele.  Unfortunately, amidst all this activity,
Xnobody thought of correcting the term `jargon' to `slang' until the
Xcompendium had become widely known as the Jargon File it was too late.
X
XRaphael Finkel dropped out of active participation shortly thereafter,
Xand Don Woods became the SAIL contact for the File (which was
Xsubsequently kept in duplicate at SAIL and MIT, with periodic
Xre-synchronizations).
X
XThe File expanded by fits and starts until about 1983; Richard
XStallman was prominent among the contributors, adding many MIT and
XITS-related coinages.
X
XA late version of jargon-1, expanded with commentary for the mass
Xmarket, was edited by Guy L. Steele into a book published in 1983 as
X`The Hacker's Dictionary' (Harper & Row CN 1082, ISBN
X0-06-091082-8).  The other jargon-1 editors (Raphael Finkel, Don
XWoods, and Mark Crispin) contributed to the revision, as did Richard
XM. Stallman and Geoff Goodfellow.  This book is hereafter referred to
Xas `Steele-1983'.  It is now out of print.
X
XShortly after the publication of Steele-1983, the File effectively
Xstopped growing and changing.  Originally, this was because of a
Xdesire to freeze the file temporarily to facilitate the production of
XSteele-1983, but external conditions caused the `temporary' freeze
Xbecame permanent. 
X
XThe AI-Lab culture had been hit hard in the late 1970s by funding
Xcuts, and the resulting administrative decision to use vendor-supported
Xhardware and software instead of homebrew whenever possible.  At MIT,
Xmost AI work had turned to dedicated LISP Machines.  At the same time,
Xthe commercialization of AI technology lured some of the AI Labs' best
Xand brightest away to startups along the Route 128 strip in
XMassachusetts and out west to Silicon Valley.  The startups built LISP
Xmachines for MIT; the central MIT-AI computer became a {TWENEX}
Xsystem rather than a host for the AI hackers' beloved {ITS}.
X
XThe Stanford AI Lab had effectively ceased to exist by 1980, although
Xthe SAIL computer continued as a Computer Science Department resource
Xuntil 1991.  Stanford became a major {TWENEX} site, at one point
Xoperating more than a dozen TOPS-20 systems; but by the mid-1980's
Xmost of the interesting software work was being done on the emerging
XBSD Unix standard. 
X
XIn April 1983, the PDP-10-centered cultures that had nourished the
XFile were dealt a death-blow by the cancellation of the Jupiter
Xproject at DEC.  The File's compilers, already dispersed, moved on to
Xother things.  Steele-1983 was partly a monument to what its authors
Xthought was a dying tradition; no one involved realized at the time
Xjust how widely its influence was to run.
X
XBy the mid-1980s the File's content was dated, but the legend that had
Xgrown up around it never quite died out.  The book, and softcopies
Xobtained off the ARPANET, circulated even in cultures far removed from
XMIT's and Stanford's; the content exerted a strong and continuing
Xinfluence on hackish language and humor.  Even as the advent of the
Xmicrocomputer and other trends fueled a tremendous expansion of
Xhackerdom, the File (and related materials like the AI Koans in
XAppendix A) came to be seen as a sort of sacred epic, a hacker-culture
XMatter of Britain chronicling the heroic exploits of the Knights of
Xthe Lab.  The pace of change in hackerdom at large accelerated
Xtremendously --- but the Jargon File, having passed from living
Xdocument to icon, remained essentially untouched for seven years.
X
XThis revision contains nearly the entire text of a late version of
Xjargon-1 (a few obsolete PDP-10-related entries have been dropped
Xfollowing careful consultation with the editors of Steele-1983).  It
Xmerges in about about 80% of the Steele-1983 text, omitting some
Xframing material and a very few entries introduced in Steele-1983
Xwhich are now also obsolete.
X
XThis new version casts a wider net than the old jargon file; its aim
Xis to cover not just AI or PDP-10 hacker culture but all the technical
Xcomputing cultures wherein the true hacker-nature is manifested.  More
Xthan half of the entries now derive from USENET and represent jargon
Xnow current in the C and UNIX communities, but special efforts have
Xbeen made to collect jargon from other cultures including IBM PC
Xprogrammers, Amiga fans, Mac enthusiasts, and even the IBM mainframe
Xworld.
X
XWhere a term can be attributed to a particular subculture or is known
Xto have originated there, we have tried to so indicate.  Here is a
Xlist of abbreviations used in etymologies:
X
XBerkeley
X     University of California at Berkeley
XCambridge
X     The university in England (*not* the city in Massachusetts where
X     MIT happens to be located!)
XBBN
X     Bolt, Beranek & Newman
XCMU
X     Carnegie-Mellon University
XCommodore
X     Commodore Business Machines
XDEC
X     The Digital Equipment Corporation.
XFairchild
X     The Fairchild Instruments Palo Alto development group.
XFidonet
X     See the {Fidonet} entry.
XIBM
X     International Business Machines
XMIT
X     Massachusetts Institute of Technology; esp. the legendary MIT AI Lab
X     culture of roughly 1971 to 1983.  See also TMRC.
XNYU
X     New York University
XPurdue
X     Purdue University
XSAIL
X     Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
XStanford
X     Stanford University
XSun
X     Sun Microsystems
XTMRC
X     Some MITisms go back as far as the Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC) at
X     MIT c.1960.  Material marked TMRC is from `An Abridged Dictionary
X     of the TMRC Language', originally compiled by Pete Samson in 1959.
XUCLA
X     University of California at Los Angeles
XUSENET
X     See the {USENET} entry.
XWPI
X     Worcester Polytechnic Institute, site of a very active community of
X     PDP-10 hackers during the Seventies.
XXEROX PARC
X     XEROX's Palo Alto Research Center, site of much pioneering research in
X     user interface design and networking.
XYale
X     Yale University
X
XSome other etymology abbreviations such as {UNIX}, {PDP-10}, etc.
Xrefer to technical cultures surrounding specific operating systems,
Xprocessors, or other environments.  Note: the fact that a term is
Xlabelled with any of these abbreviations does not necessarily mean its
Xuse is confined to that culture.  In particular, many terms labelled
X`MIT' and `Stanford' are in quite general use. We have tried to give
Xsome indication of speaker distribution in the usage notes.  However,
Xa number of factors mentioned in the introduction conspire to make
Xthese indications less definite than might be desirable.
X
XEric S. Raymond (eric@snark.thyrsus.com) maintains the new File with
Xassistance from Guy L. Steele (gls@think.com); these are the persons
Xprimarily reflected in the File's editorial `we', though we take
Xpleasure in acknowledging the special contribution of the other
Xcoauthors of Steele-1983.  Please email all additions, corrections and
Xcorrespondence relating to the jargon file to jargon@thyrsus.com
X(UUCP-only sites without connections to an autorouting smart site can
Xuse ...!uunet!snark!jargon).
X
X(Warning: other email addresses appear in this file *but are not
Xguaranteed to be correct* later than the revision date on the first
Xline.  *Don't* email us if an attempt to reach your idol bounces
X--- we have no magic way of checking addresses or looking up people)
X
XSome snapshot of this on-line version will become the main text of a
X`New Hacker's Dictionary', to be published by MIT Press possibly as
Xearly as Summer 1991.  The maintainers are committed to updating the
Xon-line version of the jargon file through and beyond paper
Xpublication, and will continue to make it available to archives and
Xpublic-access sites as a trust of the hacker community.
X
XHere is a chronology of the recent on-line revisions:
X
XVersion 2.1.1, Jun 12 1990: the jargon file comes alive again after a
Xseven-year hiatus.  Reorganization and massive additions were by Eric
XS. Raymond, approved by Guy Steele.  Many items of UNIX, C, USENET, and
Xmicrocomputer-based jargon were added at that time (as well as The
XUntimely Demise of Mabel The Monkey).  Some obsolete usages (mostly
XPDP-10 derived) were moved to Appendix B.
X
XVersion 2.1.5, Nov 28 1990: changes and additions by ESR in response to
Xnumerous USENET submissions and comment from the First Edition co-authors.
XThe bibliography (Appendix C) was also appended.  
X
XVersion 2.2.1, Dec 15 1990: most of the contents of the 1983 paper
Xedition edited by Guy Steele was merged in.  Many more USENET
Xsubmissions added, including the International Style and the material
Xon Commonwealth Hackish.  This version had 9394 lines, 75954 words,
X490501 characters, and 1046 entries.
X
XVersion 2.3.1, Jan 03 1991: the great format change --- case is no
Xlonger smashed in lexicon keys and cross-references.  A very few
Xentries from jargon-1 which were basically straight techspeak were
Xdeleted; this enabled the rest of Appendix B to be merged back into
Xmain text and the appendix replaced with the Portrait of J. Random
XHacker.  More USENET submissions were added.  This version had 10728
Xlines, 85070 words, 558261 characters, and 1138 entries.
X
XVersion 2.4.1, Jan 14 1991: the Story of Mel and many more USENET
Xsubmissions merged in.  More material on hackish writing habits added.
XNumerous typo fixes.  This version had 12362 lines, 97819 words,
X642899 characters, and 1239 entries.
X
XVersion 2.5.1, Jan 29 1991: many new entries merged in.  Discussion of
Xinclusion styles added.  This version had 14145 lines, 111904 words,
X734285 characters, and 1425 entries.
X
XVersion 2.6.1, Feb 13 1991: second great format change; no more <>
Xaround headwords or references.  Merged in results of serious
Xcopy-editing passes by Guy Steele, Mark Brader.  Still more entries
Xadded.  This version had 15011 lines, 118277 words, 774942 characters,
Xand 1485 entries.
X
XVersion 2.7.1, Mar 1 1991: new section on slang/jargon/techspeak
Xadded.  Results of Guy's 2nd edit pass merged in.  This version had
X16087 lines, 126885 words, 831872 characters, and 1533 entries.
X
XVersion 2.8.1, Mar 22 1991: material from the TMRC Dictionary and
XMRC's editing pass merged in.  This version had 17154 lines, 135647
Xwords, 888333 characters, and 1602 entries.
X
XVersion numbering: Read versions as major.minor.revision.
XMajor version 1 is reserved for the `old' (ITS) Jargon File, jargon-1.
XMajor version 2 encompasses revisions by ESR (Eric S. Raymond) with
Xassistance from GLS (Guy L. Steele).  Someday, the next maintainer will
Xtake over and spawn `version 3'.  Usually later versions will either
Xcompletely supersede or incorporate earlier versions, so there is
Xgenerally no point in keeping old versions around.
X
XOur thanks to the other co-authors of Steele-1983 for oversight and
Xassistance; also to all the USENETters who contributed entries and
Xencouragement.  Special thanks go to our Scandinavian correspondent
XPer Lindberg (per@front.se), author of the remarkable Swedish
Xlanguage 'zine `Hackerbladet', for bringing FOO! comics to our
Xattention and smuggling one of the IBM hacker underground's own baby
Xjargon files out to us.  Also, much gratitude to ace hacker/linguist
XJoe Keane (jkg@osc.osc.com) for helping us improve the pronunciation
Xguides; and to Maarten Litmaath for generously allowing the inclusion
Xof the ASCII pronunciation guide he formerly maintained.  Don Libes
Xcontributed some appropriate material from his excellent book
X`Life With UNIX'.  Linguists David Stampe and Charles Hoequist
Xalso contributed valuable criticism.  Finally, Mark Brader
X(msb@sq.com) submitted many thoughtful comments and did yeoman
Xservice in catching typos and minor usage bobbles, and Eric Tiedemann
X(est@thyrsus.com) contributed sage advice on rhetoric, amphigory, and
Xphilosophunculism.
X
XFormat For New Entries
X======================
X
XTry to conform to the format already being used --- head-words
Xseparated from text by a colon (double colon for topic entries),
Xcross-references in curly brackets (doubled for topic entries),
Xpronunciations in slashes, etymologies in square brackets,
Xsingle-space after definition numbers and word classes, etc.  Stick to
Xthe standard ASCII character set (7-bit printable, no high-half
Xcharacters or [nt]roff/TeX/Scribe escapes), as one of the versions
Xgenerated from the master file is an info document that has to be
Xviewable on a character tty.
X
XWe are looking to expand the file's range of technical specialties covered.
XThere are doubtless rich veins of jargon yet untapped in the scientific
Xcomputing, graphics, and networking hacker communities; also in numerical
Xanalysis, computer architectures and VLSI design, language design, and many
Xother related fields.  Send us your jargon!
X
XWe are *not* interested in straight technical terms explained by
Xtextbooks or technical dictionaries unless an entry illuminates
X`underground' meanings or aspects not covered by official histories.
XWe are also not interested in `joke' entries --- there is a lot of
Xhumor in the file but it must flow naturally out of the explanations
Xof what hackers do and how they think.
X
XIt is OK to submit items of jargon you have originated if they have spread
Xto the point of being used by people who are not personally acquainted with
Xyou.  We prefer items to be attested by independent submission from two
Xdifferent sites.
X
XA few new definitions attached to entries are marked [proposed].
XThese are usually generalizations suggested by editors or USENET
Xrespondents in the process of commenting on previous definitions of
Xthose entries.  These are *not* represented as established
Xjargon.
X
XThe jargon file will be regularly maintained and re-posted from now on and
Xwill include a version number.  Read it, pass it around, contribute --- this
Xis *your* monument!
X
XJargon Construction
X===================
X
XThere are some standard methods of jargonification which became
Xestablished quite early (i.e. before 1970), spreading from such
Xsources as the MIT Model Railroad Club, the PDP-1 SPACEWAR hackers,
Xand John McCarthy's original crew of LISPers.  These include:
X
XVerb doubling: A standard construction in English is to double a verb
Xand use it as an exclamation, such as "Bang, bang!" or "Quack,
Xquack!".  Most of these are names for noises.  Hackers also double
Xverbs as a concise, sometimes sarcastic comment on what the implied
Xsubject does.  Also, a doubled verb is often used to terminate a
Xconversation, in the process remarking on the current state of affairs
Xor what the speaker intends to do next.  Typical examples involve
X{win}, {lose}, {hack}, {flame}, {barf}, {chomp}:
X
X     "The disk heads just crashed."  "Lose, lose."
X     "Mostly he talked about his latest crock.  Flame, flame."
X     "Boy, what a bagbiter!  Chomp, chomp!"
X
XSome verb-doubled constructions have special meanings not immediately
Xobvious from the verb.  These have their own listings in the lexicon.
X
XSoundalike slang: Hackers will often make rhymes or puns in order to
Xconvert an ordinary word or phrase into something more interesting.
XIt is considered particularly {flavorful} if the phrase is bent so
Xas to include some other jargon word; thus the computer hobbyist
Xmagazine `Dr. Dobb's Journal' is almost always referred to among
Xhackers as `Dr. Frob's Journal' or simply `Dr. Frob's'.  Terms of
Xthis kind that have been in fairly wide use include names for
Xnewspapers:
X
X     Boston Herald American => Horrid (or Harried) American
X     Boston Globe => Boston Glob
X     Houston (or San Francisco) Chronicle
X             => the Crocknicle (or the Comical)
X     New York Times => New York Slime
X
XHowever, terms like these are often made up on the spur of the moment.
XStandard examples include:
X
X     Prime Time => Slime Time
X     Data General => Dirty Genitals
X     IBM 360 => IBM Three-Sickly
X     Government Property --- Do Not Duplicate (seen on keys)
X             => Government Duplicity --- Do Not Propagate
X     for historical reasons => for hysterical raisins
X     Margaret Jacks Hall => Marginal Hacks Hall
X
XThis is not really similar to the Cockney rhyming slang it has been
Xcompared to in the past, because Cockney substitutions are opaque
Xwhereas hacker punning jargon is intentionally transparent. 
X
XThe -P convention: turning a word into a question by appending the
Xsyllable `P'; from the LISP convention of appending the letter `P'
Xto denote a predicate (a Boolean-valued function).  The question
Xshould expect a yes/no answer, though it needn't.  (See T and NIL.)
X
X     At dinnertime:
X            Q: "Foodp?"
X            A: "Yeah, I'm pretty hungry." or "T!"
X
X            Q: "State-of-the-world-P?"
X            A: (Straight) "I'm about to go home."
X            A: (Humorous) "Yes, the world has a state."
X
X     On the phone to Florida:
X            Q: "State-p Florida?"
X            A: "Been reading JARGON.TXT again, eh?"
X
X[One of the best of these is a {Gosperism} Once, when we were at a
XChinese restaurant, Bill Gosper wanted to know whether someone would
Xlike to share with him a two-person-sized bowl of soup.  His inquiry
Xwas: "Split-p soup?" --- GLS]
X
XOvergeneralization: A very conspicuous feature of jargon is the
Xfrequency with which techspeak items like names of program tools,
Xcommand language primitives, and even assembler opcodes are applied to
Xcontexts outside of computing wherever hackers find amusing analogies
Xto them.  Thus, (to cite one of the best-known examples) UNIX hackers
Xoften {grep} for things rather than searching for them.  Many of the
Xlexicon entries are generalizations of exactly this kind.
X
XHackers enjoy overgeneralization on the grammatical level as well.
XMany hackers love to take various words and add the wrong endings to
Xthem to make nouns and verbs, often by extending a standard rule to
Xnonuniform cases (or vice versa).  For example, because
X
X     porous => porosity
X     generous => generosity
X
Xhackers happily generalize:
X
X     mysterious => mysteriosity
X     ferrous => ferrosity
X     obvious => obviosity
X     dubious => dubiosity
X
XAlso, note that all nouns can be verbed.  E.g.: "All nouns can be
Xverbed", "I'll mouse it up", "Hang on while I clipboard it over",
X"I'm grepping the files".  English as a whole is already heading in
Xthis direction (towards pure-positional grammar like Chinese);
Xhackers are simply a bit ahead of the curve.
X
XSimilarly, all verbs can be nouned.  Thus:
X
X     win => winnitude, winnage
X     disgust => disgustitude
X     hack => hackification
X
XFinally, note the prevalence of certain kinds of nonstandard plural
Xforms.  Some of these go back quite a ways; the TMRC Dictionary noted
Xthat the defined plural of `caboose' is `cabeese'.  On a similarly
XAnglo-Saxon note, almost anything ending in `x' may form plurals in
X-xen (see {VAXen} and {boxen} in the main text).  Even words
Xending in phonetic /k/ alone are sometimes treated this way; e.g.
X`soxen' for a bunch of socks.  Other funny plurals are `frobbotzim'
Xfor the plural of `frobbozz' (see {frobnitz}) and `Unices' and
X`Tenices' (rather than `Unixes' and `Tenexes'; see {UNIX}, {TENEX}
Xin main text).  But note that `Unixen' and `Tenexen' are *never*
Xused; it has been suggested that this is because `-ix' and `-ex' are
XLatin singular endings that attract a Latinate plural.
X
XThe pattern here, as with other hackish grammatical quirks, is
Xgeneralization of an inflectional rule which (in English) is either
Xan import or a fossil (such as Hebrew plural in `-im', or the
XAnglo-Saxon plural in `-en') to cases where it isn't normally
Xconsidered to apply.
X
XThis is not `poor grammar', as hackers are generally quite well
Xaware of what they are doing when they distort the language.  It is
Xgrammatical creativity, a form of playfulness.
X
XSpoken inarticulations: Words such as `mumble', `sigh', and
X`groan' are spoken in places where their referent might more
Xnaturally be used.  It has been suggested that this usage derives from
Xthe impossibility of representing such noises on a comm link or in
Xemail.  Another expression sometimes heard is "Complain!", meaning
X"I have a complaint!"
X
XOf the five listed constructions, verb doubling, peculiar noun
Xformations, and (especially!) spoken inarticulations have become quite
Xgeneral; but punning jargon is still largely confined to MIT and other
Xlarge universities, and the -P convention is found only where LISPers
Xflourish.
X
XFinally, note that many words in hacker jargon have to be
Xunderstood as members of sets of comparatives.  This is especially
Xtrue of the adjectives and nouns used to describe the beauty and
Xfunctional quality of code.  Here is an approximately correct
Xspectrum:
X
X     MONSTROSITY BRAIN-DAMAGE  SCREW  BUG  LOSE  MISFEATURE
X     CROCK  KLUGE  HACK  WIN  FEATURE  ELEGANCE PERFECTION
X
XThe last is spoken of as a mythical absolute, approximated but never
Xactually attained.  Coinages for describing {lossage} seem to call
Xforth the very finest in hackish linguistic inventiveness; it has been
Xtruly said that "{Computer geeks} have more words for equipment
Xfailures than Inuit have for snow", or than Yiddish has for obnoxious
Xpeople.
X
XHacker Speech Style
X===================
X
XThis features extremely precise diction, careful word choice, a
Xrelatively large working vocabulary, and relatively little use of
Xcontractions or `street slang'.  Dry humor, irony, puns, and a
Xmildly flippant attitude are highly valued --- but an underlying
Xseriousness and intelligence is essential.  One should use just
Xenough jargon to communicate precisely and identify oneself as `in
Xthe culture'; overuse of jargon or a breathless, excessively
Xgung-ho attitude are considered tacky and the mark of a loser.
X
XThis speech style is a variety of the precisionist English normally
Xspoken by scientists, design engineers, and academics in technical
Xfields.  Unlike the jargon construction methods, it is fairly constant
Xthroughout hackerdom.
X
XIt has been observed that many hackers are confused by negative
Xquestions --- or, at least, the people they're talking to are often
Xconfused by the sense of their answers.  The problem is that they've
Xdone so much coding that distinguishes between
X
X     if (going) {
X
Xand
X
X     if (!going) {
X
Xthat when they parse the question "Aren't you going?" it seems to be
Xasking the opposite question from "Are you going?", and so merits an
Xanswer in the opposite sense.  This confuses English-speaking
Xnon-hackers because they were taught to answer as though the negative
Xpart weren't there.  In some other languages (including Russian,
XChinese and Japanese) the hackish interpretation is standard and the
Xproblem wouldn't arise.  Hackers often find themselves wishing for a
Xword like French `si' or German `doch' with which one could
Xunambiguously answer `yes' to a negative question.
X
XFor similar reasons, English-speaking hackers almost never use a
Xdouble negative even if they live in a region where colloquial usage
Xallows it.  The thought of uttering something that logically ought to
Xbe an affirmative knowing it will be mis-parsed as a negative tends to
Xdisturb them. 
X
XHacker Writing Style
X====================
X
XWe've already seen that hackers often coin jargon by overgeneralizing
Xgrammatical rules.  This is one aspect of a more general fondness for
Xform-versus-content language jokes that shows up particularly in
Xhackish writing.  One correspondent reports that he consistently
Xmisspells `wrong' as `worng'.  Others has been known to criticize
Xglitches in Jargon File drafts by observing "This sentence no verb",
Xor "Bad speling", or "Incorrectspa cing."  Similarly, intentional
XSpoonerisms are often made of phrases relating to confusion, or things
Xwhich are confusing; `dain bramage' for `brain damage' is perhaps the
Xmost common (similarly, a hacker would be likely to write "Excuse me,
XI'm cixelsyd today", rather than "I'm dyslexic...").  This sort of
Xthing is quite common and enjoyed by all concerned.
X
XHackers tend to use quotes as balanced delimiters like parentheses,
Xmuch to the dismay of American editors.  Thus, if "Jim is going" is
Xa phrase, and so is "Bill runs" and "Spock groks", then hackers
Xgenerally prefer to write: "Jim is going", "Bill runs", and
X"Spock groks".  This is incorrect according to standard American
Xusage (which would put the continuation commas and the final period
Xinside the string quotes) but it is counter-intuitive to hackers to
Xmutilate literal strings with characters that don't belong in them.
XGiven the sorts of examples that can come up in discussing
Xprogramming, American-style quoting can even be grossly misleading.
XWhen communicating command lines or small pieces of code, extra
Xcharacters can be a real pain in the neck.  For example:
X
X     First do "foo -acrZ tempo | bar -," then ...
X
Xis different from
X
X     First do "foo -acrZ tempo | bar -", then ...
X
Xfrom a computer's point of view.  While the first is correct according
Xto the stylebooks and would probably be parsed correctly by the a
Xhuman recipient, the second is unambiguous.  The Jargon File follows
Xhackish usage consistently throughout.
X
XInterestingly, a similar style is now preferred practice in Great
XBritain, though the older style (which became established for
Xtypographical reasons having to do with the aesthetics of comma and
Xquotes in typeset text) is still accepted there.  Hart's Rules and the
XOxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors call the hacker-like style
X`new' or `logical' style quoting.
X
XAnother hacker quirk about quoting style is a tendency to distinguish
Xbetween `scare' quotes and `speech' quotes; that is, to use
XBritish-style single quotes for marking and reserve American-style
Xdouble quotes for actual reports of speech or text included from
Xelsewhere.  Interestingly, some authorities describe this as correct
Xgeneral usage, but mainstream American English has gone to using
Xdouble-quotes thoroughly enough that hacker usage appears marked [and,
Xin fact, I thought this was a personal quirk of mine until I checked
Xwith USENET --- ESR].  One further permutation that is definitely
X*not* standard is a hackish tendency to do marking quotes by
Xusing apostrophes in pairs; that is, 'like this'.  This is modelled on
Xstring and character literal syntax in some programming languages
X(reinforced by the fact that many character-only terminals display a
Xvertical single quote).
X
XThere seems to be a meta-rule behind these nonstandard hackerisms to
Xthe effect that precision of expression is more important than
Xconformance to traditional rules; where the latter create ambiguity or
Xlose information they can be discarded without a second thought.  It
Xis notable in this respect that other hackish inventions (for example,
Xin vocabulary) also tend to carry very precise shades of meaning even
Xwhen constructed to appear slangy and loose.  In fact, to a hacker,
Xthe contrast between `loose' form and `tight' content in jargon is a
Xsubstantial part of its humor!
X
XThere is another respect in which hackish usage often parallels
XBritish usage; it tends to choose British spellings whenever these
Xseem more phonetically consistent than the American ones.
X
XHackers have also developed a number of punctuation and emphasis
Xconventions adapted to single-font all-ASCII communications links, and
Xthese are occasionally carried over into written documents even when
Xnormal means of font changes, underlining, and the like are available.
X
XOne of these is that TEXT IN ALL CAPS IS INTERPRETED AS `LOUD', and
Xthis becomes such an ingrained synesthetic reflex that a person who
Xgoes to caps-lock while in {talk mode} may be asked to "stop
Xshouting, please, you're hurting my ears!".
X
XAlso, it is common to use bracketing with asterisks to signify
Xemphasis, as in "What the *hell*?" (note that this interferes with
Xthe common use of asterisk suffix as a footnote mark).  An alternative
Xform uses paired slash and backslash: "What the \hell/?".  The
Xlatter is never used in text documents, as many formatters treat
Xbackslash as an escape and may do inappropriate things with the
Xfollowing text.  Yet another form emphasizes text L I K E  T H I S.
XAlso note that there is a semantic difference between *emphasis like
Xthis*, (which emphasizes the phrase as a whole) and *emphasis* *like*
X*this* (which suggests the writer speaking very slowly and distinctly,
Xas if to a very young child or mentally impaired person).  See also
Xthe lexicon entry for {emoticon}.
X
XIn a formula, `*' signifies multiplication but two asterisks in a
Xrow are a shorthand for exponentiation (this derives from FORTRAN).
XThus, one might write `2 ** 8 = 256'.
X
XAnother notation for exponentiation one sees more frequently uses the
Xcaret (^, ASCII 1011110); one might write instead `2 ^ 8 = 256'.
XThis goes all the way back to Algol-60, which used the archaic ASCII
X`up-arrow' that later became caret; this was picked up by Kemeny &
XKurtz's original BASIC, which in turn influenced the design of the
Xbc(1) and dc(1) UNIX tools that have probably done most to reinforce
Xthe convention on USENET.  The notation is mildly confusing to C
Xprogrammers, because `^' means logical {XOR} in C.  Despite
Xthis, it was favored 3:1 over ** in a late-1990 snapshot of USENET.
XIt is used consistently in this text.
X
XIn on-line exchanges, hackers tend to write improper fractions in
Xratio or decimal form rather than `typewriter' style: that is, `7/2'
Xor `3.5' rather than `3-1/2'.  The major motive here is probably that
Xthe former are more readable in a monospaced font, and avoid the risk
Xthat the latter might be read as `three minus one-half'.  The decimal
Xform is definitely preferred for fractions with a terminating decimal
Xrepresentation; there may be some cultural influence here from the
Xhigh status of scientific notation.
X
XAnother on-line convention, used especially for very large or very small
Xnumbers, is taken from C (which derived it from FORTRAN).  This is a
Xform of `scientific notation' using `e' to replace `*10^'; for example,
Xone year is about 3e7 seconds long .
X
XThe tilde (~) is commonly used in a quantifying sense of
X`approximately'; that is, `~50' means `about fifty'.
X
XUnderlining is often suggested by substituting underscores for spaces
Xand prepending and appending one underscore to the underlined phrase.
XExample: "It is often alleged that Haldeman wrote _The_Forever_War_
Xin response to Robert Heinlein's earlier _Starship_Troopers_."
XOccasionally this underline indication is used for emphasis, like the
Xpaired asterisks.
X
XThere is also an accepted convention for `writing under erasure'; the
Xtext
X
X     Be nice to this fool^H^H^H^Hgentleman, he's in from corporate HQ.
X
Xwould be read as "Be nice to this fool, I mean this gentleman...".
XThis comes from the fact that the digraph ^H is often used as a print
Xrepresentation for a backspace.  It parallels (and may have been
Xinfluenced by) the ironic use of `slashouts' in science-fiction fanzines.
X
XOn USENET and in the {MUD} world, common C boolean, logical, and
Xrelational operators such as (`|', `&', `!', `==', `!=', `>', and `<')
Xare often combined with English.  The Pascal not-equals, `<>', is also
Xrecognized.  The use of prefix `!' as a loose synonym for `not-' or
X`no-' is particularly common; thus, `!clue' is read `no-clue' or
X`clueless'.
X
XAnother habit is that of using angle-bracket enclosure to genericize a
Xterm; this derives from conventions used in {BNF}.  Uses like the
Xfollowing are common:
X
X     So this <ethnic> walks into a bar one day, and...
X
XOne quirk that shows up frequently in the {email} style of UNIX
Xhackers in particular is a tendency for some things which are normally
Xall-lowercase (including usernames and the names of commands and C
Xroutines) to remain uncapitalized even when they occur at the
Xbeginning of sentences.  It is clear that, for many hackers, the case
Xof such identifiers becomes a part of their internal representation
X(the `spelling') and cannot be overridden without mental effort (an
Xappropriate reflex because UNIX and C both distinguish cases and
Xconfusing them can lead to lossage).  A way of escaping this dilemma
Xis simply to avoid using these constructions at the beginning of
Xsentences.
X
XHackers also mix letters and numbers more freely than in mainstream
Xusage.  In particular, it is good hackish style to write a digit
Xsequence where you intend the reader to understand the text string
Xthat names that number in English.  So, hackers write "1970s" rather
Xthan "nineteen-seventies" or "1970's" (the later looks like a
Xpossessive).
X
XFinally, it should be noted that hackers exhibit much less reluctance
Xto use multiply nested parentheses than is normal in English.  Partly
Xthis is almost certainly due to influence from LISP ((which uses
Xdeeply nested parentheses (like this) in its syntax) (a lot (see?))),
Xbut it has also been suggested that a more basic hacker trait of
Xenjoying playing with complexity and pushing systems to their limits
Xis in operation.
X
XOne area where hackish conventions for on-line writing are still in
Xsome flux is the marking of included material from earlier messages
X--- what would be called `block quotations' in ordinary English.  From
Xthe usual typographic convention employed for these (smaller font at
Xan extra indent), there derived the notation of included text being
Xindented by one ASCII TAB (0001001) character, which under UNIX and
Xmany other environments gives the appearance of an 8-space indent.
X
XEarly mail and netnews readers had no facility for including messages
Xthis way, so people had to paste in copy manually.  BSD `Mail(1)'
Xwas the first message agent to support inclusion, and early USENETters
Xemulated its style.  But the TAB character tended to push included
Xtext too far to the right (especially in multiply nested inclusions),
Xleading to ugly wraparounds.  After a brief period of confusion
X(during which an inclusion leader consisting of three or four spaces
Xbecame established in EMACS and a few mailers), the use of leading ">"
Xor "> " became standard, perhaps because the character suggests
Xmovement to the right (alternatively, it may derive from the ">" that
Xsome V7 UNIX mailers use to quote leading instances of "From" in
Xtext).  Inclusions within inclusions keep their ">" leaders, so the
X`nesting level' of a quotation is visually apparent.
X
XA few other idiosyncratic quoting styles survive because they're
Xautomatically generated.  One particularly ugly one looks like this:
X
X     /* Written hh:mm pm  Mmm dd, yyyy by user@site in local:group */
X     /* ---------- "Subject of article chopped to 35 ch" ---------- */
X        <<quoted text>>
X     /* End of text from local:group */
X
XIt's generated by an elderly, variant news-reading system called
X`notesfiles'.  The overall trend, however, is definitely away from
Xsuch verbosity.
X
XThe practice of including text helped solve what had been a major
Xnuisance on USENET: the fact that articles do not arrive at different
Xsites in the same order.  Careless posters used to post articles that
Xwould begin with, or even consist entirely of, "No, that's wrong",
Xor "I agree" or the like.  It was hard to see who was responding to
Xwhat.  Consequently, in about 1984, new news-posting software was
Xcreated with a facility to automatically include the text of a
Xprevious article, marked with "> " or whatever the poster chose.  The
Xposter was expected to delete all but the relevant lines.  The result
Xhas been that, now, careless posters post articles containing the
X*entire* text of a preceding article, *followed* only by
X"No, that's wrong" or "I agree".
X
XMany people feel that this cure is worse than the original disease,
Xand there soon appeared newsreader software designed to let the reader
Xskip over included text if desired.  Today, some posting software
Xrejects articles containing too high a proportion of lines beginning
Xwith ">", but this too has led to undesirable workarounds such as the
Xdeliberate inclusion of zero-content filler lines which aren't quoted
Xand thus pull the message below the rejection threshold.
X
XBecause the default mailers supplied with UNIX and other operating
Xsystems haven't evolved as quickly as human usage, the older
Xconventions using a leading TAB or three or four spaces are still
Xalive; however, >-inclusion is now clearly the prevalent form in both
Xnetnews and mail.
X
XPractice is still evolving, and disputes over the `correct' inclusion
Xstyle occasionally leads to {holy wars}.  One variant style reported
Xuses the citation character `|' in place of `>' for extended
Xquotations where original variations in indentation are being
Xretained.  One also sees different styles of quoting a number of
Xauthors in the same message: one (deprecated because it loses
Xinformation) uses a leader of "> " for everyone, another (the most
Xcommon) is "> > > > ", "> > > ", etc. (or ">>>> ", ">>> ", etc.,
Xdepending on line length and nesting depth) reflecting the original
Xorder of messages, and yet another is to use a different citation
Xleader for each author, say "> ", ": ", "| ", "} " (preserving
Xnesting so that the inclusion order of messages is still apparent, or
Xtagging the inclusions with authors' names).  Yet *another* style
Xis to use each poster's initials (or login name) as a citation leader
Xfor that poster.  Occasionally one sees a "# " leader used for
Xquotations from *authoritative* sources such as standards
Xdocuments; the intended allusion is to the root prompt (the special
XUNIX command prompt issued when one is running as the privileged
Xsuper-user).
X
XFinally, it is worth mentioning that many studies of on-line
Xcommunication have shown that electronic links have a de-inhibiting
Xeffect on people.  Deprived of the body-language cues through which
SHAR_EOF
true || echo 'restore of jargon.ascii failed'
fi
echo 'End of part 1, continue with part 2'
echo 2 > _shar_seq_.tmp
exit 0