Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!seismo!umcp-cs!chris From: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: soc.misc Subject: Re: Down with engineerlish! Message-ID: <3773@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 09:01:07 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3773 Posted: Thu Oct 9 09:01:07 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 04:24:37 EDT References: <741@scc.UUCP> <6128@alice.uUCp> <235@ima.UUCP> Reply-To: chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci. Lines: 72 [Sorry about the massive quoting; I believe it is all relevant.] In article <235@ima.UUCP> trb@ima.UUCP (Andrew Tannenbaum) writes: >Functionality is in my dictionary. (Under functional, Webster's Ninth >Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster 1983 red hardcover.) If you like, >you can insist that it doesn't exist. Humor yourself. What does functionality mean? Specifically, what does it mean to *you*? To me it has two meanings. `Emacs has more functionality' might mean `Emacs does more', or it might mean `Emacs works better'. These are not the same thing. If you mean one, or the other, say the one, or the other. If you mean both, say both. If the context makes clear the proper meaning, go ahead and use the word `functionality'. If not, avoid it. >To a programmer, initialize does not mean start. To initialize means >to set variables to their initial values. To a programmer, a variable >isn't just a parameter or an attribute. When some haughty lexicographic >irregular poo-poos something she doesn't understand (technical jargon, >in this instance) just because she once saw some business woman with a >three piece suit and a shmatte around her neck use the word finalize, >all I can do is assume that she is complaining about something of which >she knows not. If your `lexicographic irregular' is criticising something written for programmers, she is wrong. If she is criticising something written for others, she may well be right. Intended audience is important. >[...] > >I hate the word finalize. (Set variables to their final values? ;-) >In fact, I have never heard an engineer use the word finalize, though I >have heard (pompous) engineering managers use the word, along with their >whole raft of silly catch phrases. If those managers are communicating among themselves, who cares what words they use? When they attempt to communicate with *me*, however, I expect them at least to use `common English'. Finalize is not a common English word. I understand some of those `silly catch phrases', but I would rather not have to guess at their meaning. I could well guess wrong. >Yes, I'm generalizing. So take me to mod.legal. Yes, there are >engineers who are lousy writers and communicators. But I find that >engineers, with their backgrounds in problem solving, are often >clear thinkers and communicators when compared to people who you'd >think would be better communicators - politicians, sales, and >marketing people. You are an engineer, are you not? It is then unsurprising that you understand other engineers. Chances are that each of these groups communicate best among themselves. >When a person puts down "engineerlish" without being quite specific, >I just chalk it up to ignorance. Andy is right. The language of engineers is not somehow `wrong'. It does not match common English, but this is not the fault of the language. In engineering contexts, common English is simply not appropriate. A friend of mine likes to say, `There is no good physics that cannot be explained to your average barmaid.' He is right. If you find the right words, the right analogies---in short, if you can speak the listener's language---you can say anything. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu