English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 <skunkworks at rikishi42.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> Why not use 'delete a directory'. It's obvious the content gets binned, too.

Which is why I raised the issue with regard to other operations.
Manipulating files matching a glob can be done recursively or
nonrecursively, and both make perfect sense.

> Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their garden?
> I burn them.

We used to incinerate ours (until we stopped using rapid exothermic
oxidation as a means of DECREFfing our garden waste). It's a cultural
thing, I guess.

>> Do they need to know the words "microwave oven" when they could be saying
>> "invisible rays cooking thing"?
>
> The word oven has existed for ages, microwave is just a name for the type of
> oven. Not even a description, just a name.

It's funny how a single piece of jargon can go incredibly mainstream.
"Microwave" (with or without "oven" after it) is well known, but
plenty else remains obscure.

>> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
>> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
>> Motion in order to drive cars?
>
> Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy known when the car was invented. The simple
> addition of gas solved that need. Oh, and it's break pedal, not
> descellarator. (sp?)

Americans might call it a gas pedal. We call it an accelerator. You
don't have a "decelerator pedal" though, because it's more accurately
called a "brake pedal" because it controls the brakes.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that people *should* have some basic
understanding of Newton's laws before they take charge of a ton of
high-powered machinery. At very least, some basic comprehension of
kinetic energy, and the way a high speed train has a *LOT* of it.
Might result in drivers with a little more respect for trains and
trucks.

>> Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem
>> that they don't need to know?
>
> I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.
>
> I have nothing against the use of a proper, precise term. And that word can
> be a complex one with many, many sylables (seems to add value, somehow).
>
> But I'm not an academic, so I don't admire the pedantic use of terms that
> need to be explained to 'lay' people. Especially if there is a widespread,
> usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless effort if
> pointless, even when comming from a physicist.  :-)

In any industry, you can find jargon in several different categories:

1) Terms that describe unique objects/effects/etc, where you would be
using a lengthy phrase otherwise (eg "URL")

2) Terms that are clearer or more precise than the less-jargonny
equivalents, but where you could get away with dodging jargon if you
wanted to (eg "recursive operation")

3) Words and phrases that have little value to an end user, but can be
used to show off your skill (eg "Network Destabilisation from Low
Voltage Fluorescent Lamp Spikes").

I would never apologise for using terms in the first category. Just
explain them (in a footnote if necessary) and expect people to be
accurate. The third category is mainly used for invoking Dummy Mode
(if you don't know what that is, google my example - it's vintage
BOFH), and should be avoided. It's the middle lot that are harder. Do
you use it and risk people not understanding, or avoid it and risk
people misunderstanding? Tough choice, especially since those who
misunderstand often won't know why.

If we forever aim to the stupidest of humans, the human race will get
stupider. If we forever aim way above people's heads, they won't
bother to communicate. An eternal dilemma.

Chris Angelico