English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

[Thorsten Kampe]

* Steven D'Aprano (25 May 2011 21:59:58 GMT)
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:26:11 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> 
> > Naming something in the terms of its implementation details (in this
> > case recursion) is a classical WTF.
> 
> *If* that's true, it certainly doesn't seem to apply to real-world 
> objects. Think about the exceptions:
> 
> microwave oven
> vacuum cleaner
> oven fries
> electric car
> chain saw
> flintlock rifle
> air gun
> vulcanised rubber
> kerosene heater
> aluminium foil
> diamond saw
> gas stove
> wood stove
> four-wheel drive car
> incandescent light bulb
> electric razor
> unleaded petrol
> 
> to mention only a few.
> 
> Naming the thing after the implementation would often seem to be *good 
> advice*, not bad. We often do care about implementations. You really do 
> need to know whether the car you drive uses leaded or unleaded.

That's exactly the point. You don't need to know whether "include sub-
directories" was implemented recursively. It's absolutely pointless.

But not to digress, the /real/ problem with commands or idioms like "rm 
-r" is /not/ their choice of option names but that they explain these 
options in the exact same terms. No one would have a problem with "-r, 
--recursive -- remove directories including all sub-directories" instead 
of "-r, --recursive -- remove directories and their contents 
recursively".

Thorsten