A matter of terminology...
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
I was just wondering what peoples opinions on the use of terminology are. If you posting in a thread, should you use the terminology that you are used to or the terminology that the OP is using?
Should you try to correct improper use of terminology? By pointing it out or just replying with the correct terminology? Or is it best to just let them get on with learning to program and not worry to much about how they communicate their problems?
Should you try to correct improper use of terminology? By pointing it out or just replying with the correct terminology? Or is it best to just let them get on with learning to program and not worry to much about how they communicate their problems?
I will always use the most appropriate terminology I know regardless of what the OP uses. Directly correcting people tends to get bad responses (defensiveness, hostility, etc.), so I try to avoid doing it unless their usage makes them very hard to understand. Usually just dropping a term is enough to let them search it on their own. Unless they're doing it on purpose.
I believe that, while the priority is learning to write programs,
the use of proper terminology is also a very important thing.
This seems to be the best way. That's what I usually do too. Though, I only do it in trivial
cases (e.g., 'deconstructor' -> 'destructor'), as, since I'm not a programmer by profession,
there are many areas where my terminology is, well, how should I put it... not up to date.
...or the dropped term is something that can very easily be interpreted
as not something special. (E.g., when I first encountered 'build system' I
was 100% sure it meant IDE + compiler + linker... etc... Yet, I was wrong.)
the use of proper terminology is also a very important thing.
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| I will always use the most appropriate terminology I know regardless of what the OP uses. |
This seems to be the best way. That's what I usually do too. Though, I only do it in trivial
cases (e.g., 'deconstructor' -> 'destructor'), as, since I'm not a programmer by profession,
there are many areas where my terminology is, well, how should I put it... not up to date.
| helios wrote: |
|---|
| Usually just dropping a term is enough to let them search it on their own. Unless they're doing it on purpose... |
...or the dropped term is something that can very easily be interpreted
as not something special. (E.g., when I first encountered 'build system' I
was 100% sure it meant IDE + compiler + linker... etc... Yet, I was wrong.)
Last edited on
closed account (1vRz3TCk)
Good points, I will try to be subtle and less pedantic than normal.
I sometimes wonder if the terms that I use are 'old school', for example getters and setter, to me, are just accessors and it was relatively recently that I came across the term mutator.
I sometimes wonder if the terms that I use are 'old school', for example getters and setter, to me, are just accessors and it was relatively recently that I came across the term mutator.
I tend to be less subtle, as in, "what you are trying to do is called X".
Though, there is some layering in what is correct terminology...
Though, there is some layering in what is correct terminology...
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.