bg0l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruce E. Golightly) (12/02/88)
Judging the the flames, I may have been a little out of line. I didn't realize that the software in question was non-commercial. Sorry is I offended a good Samaritan. My point, however, remains. There is a lot of "cute" junk hiding in various places in commercially supplied materials. Hidden routines named "hack" in software packages, examples in documentation with names like "frodo" and other stuff like like drive me nuts. Bruce
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/03/88)
Bruce: Hidden routines named "hack" in software packages, examples in documentation with names like "frodo" and other stuff like like drive me nuts. Therapist: Why do you feel such names drive you nuts? The idea being that under normal circumstances one would not feel like that about a moderate exhibition of a sense of fun. DEC used to have example names in their user documentation like FOO.BAR; some people appreciated the sense of humor and others started a campaign to stamp out all use of "foo".
bfbreedl@sactoh0.UUCP (Bob F. Breedlove) (12/03/88)
In article <9046@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > Bruce: Hidden routines named "hack" in software packages, examples in > documentation with names like "frodo" and other stuff like like > drive me nuts. > > Therapist: Why do you feel such names drive you nuts? > It's not the "cute names" so much that bothers me, it's terms like "grok" used in messages and other obscure references that inhibit understanding that drive ME nuts! When I'm working with a computer in a business application, I want a clear understanding of what a message -- especially an error message -- means! I don't want to have to refer to my vintage sci-fi collection or dictionary of american slang or old hippie friends to have to determine what just happened. -- Bob Breedlove SYSOP: BOBsBBS (916/929-7511) pacbell!sactoh0!bfbreedl
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (12/04/88)
In article <575@sactoh0.UUCP> bfbreedl@sactoh0.UUCP (Bob F. Breedlove) writes: >It's not the "cute names" so much that bothers me, it's terms like >"grok" used in messages and other obscure references that inhibit >understanding that drive ME nuts! When I'm working with a computer >in a business application, I want a clear understanding of what a >message -- especially an error message -- means! I don't want to >have to refer to my vintage sci-fi collection or dictionary of >american slang or old hippie friends to have to determine what just >happened. I lost track of the original reference, but I thought that the term came up in the context of an advisory message ("now trying to see if the compiler groks void") during software installation, not end-use. You mean to tell me that there is a qualified system manager who doesn't grok "grok"? The verb is in common techie use, I thought. Your point about jargon obscuring understanding is well taken, though. It's something designers and implementors should be more aware of.
bfbreedl@sactoh0.UUCP (Bob F. Breedlove) (12/05/88)
In article <9058@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > In article <575@sactoh0.UUCP> bfbreedl@sactoh0.UUCP (Bob F. Breedlove) writes: > I lost track of the original reference, but I thought that the term > came up in the context of an advisory message ("now trying to see if > You mean to tell me that there is a qualified system manager who > > Your point about jargon obscuring understanding is well taken, though. > It's something designers and implementors should be more aware of. There is obviously at least one who doesn't read science fiction, didn't go to school at a university that supported UNIX, or for some other reason doesn't know what "to grok" is, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion! -- Bob Breedlove SYSOP: BOBsBBS (916/929-7511) pacbell!sactoh0!bfbreedl