editor@chinet.UUCP (Alex Zell) (09/27/87)
Everyone has heard of "Manhattan Project." One sees that reference in newspaper stories about the "atomic bomb" of WW2, in magazine articles, and even here on the net, the domain of the most knowledgeable and sophisticated people (ask us) on the planet. The time has come to correct that usage, because "Manhattan Project" never existed. There was a project labeled officially "Manhattan Engineering District," usually shortened in most documents to "Manhattan District." I bring this up because it is another example of historical revisionism resulting from carelessness in checking original sources, or just careless dissemination of information from less than authoritative sources. Thus it is with "fubar" and "foo." In the early days of WW2, newspapers were full of feature stories about the experiences of civilians in a new culture, the military service. A notable aspect of that culture was its virtually entirely male constituency, and the development and use of language in that environment. (Yes, there were the WAACS (later WACS) and WAVES and the service organizations, USO, Salvation Army, Red Cross, but they accounted for an insignificant proportion of females within the ambience of the military establishment of the day.) The stories told of servicemen returning home on furlough and asking Mom to "pass the <*******> butter." I never did understand why the language of barracks was considered any worse than the language of the shop (also at the time dominated by males), but that is not an issue here. A popular subject of the stories was the language of the military, and the etymology of certain words, phrases and abbreviations. "GI" came in for much discussion. The usual explanation was "government issue," although some writers stretched for more fanciful sources. Another was "jeep." Debate was rather heavy on that, but consensus was that it was derived from "general purpose" ---> gp ---> jeep. The official name of the thing was "truck, 1/4 ton, 4 by 4," if memory is faithful. High priority was given to the study of "snafu." At one of its first appearances in public print in 1942 no newspaper would have dared print the meaning of the acronym: "Situation normal, all fucked up." Most stories used the expression "fouled" and let it go at that. Some even dared to suggest coyly that "fouled" was a euphemism for another word -- not even suggesting that the "other word" began with the same letter. Later on came competitive attempts in searching for better and funnier acronyms to describe the condition of the services. "Fubar" came on the scene soon, and later (I was in Camp Shelby, Miss. at the time) I broke up when somebody suggested "fubarso." The appended "so" stood for "see overlay," directing attention to the overlay, a transparency to be placed over a map. For some reason "fubarso" never gained much popularity.... ---- So what has all this to do with "foo?" Nothing. The two expressions were totally unrelated in their origins. The use of "foo" in computerology was initiated simultaneously by many hundreds of computerists. When we first received our IMSAI-8080 without disk drives, and with a defective copy of ALOS-8, we entered programs by front panel paddles. One would read the list while another did the entries. Whenever I came to an entry such as "B000" or "F000" I would pronounce "boo" or "foo" and would be corrected by son Pete: "No, you should always spell it out "ef-zero-zero-zero" or we may end up with errors." (You have no idea how rigid very young teenagers can be. "What's right is right.") *** "Foo" is not a new word. "Foo" and its cognates, "pfui" in German and many other languages, and "fooey" in English, are well established. Its use in English seems still to be unrecognized by lexicographers, but "pfui" is found in a 1914 edition of Muret-Sanders German-English dictionary which gives "pish!, faugh, ugh, few, fie" but does not offer "fooey" or "foo," an oversight which I am sure will be corrected when U.S. lexicographers bring it up at least to "vulg." or "cant," and perhaps some day even "slang" or "informal." Yep, I do recall "foo" sprinkled in Smoky Stover cartoons. Indicates that it was in use before WW2. -- Alex Zell ihnp4!chinet!editor I'd rather be on Pictou Island, N.S.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (09/27/87)
In article <1632@chinet.UUCP> editor@chinet.UUCP (Alex Zell) writes: >Debate was rather heavy on that, but consensus was that it was derived from >"general purpose" ---> gp ---> jeep. I don't suppose the Popeye character had anything to do with it, hm? So much for consensus.
roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) (10/07/87)
In article <1632@chinet.UUCP> editor@chinet.UUCP (Alex Zell) writes: >So what has all this to do with "foo?" >Nothing. The two expressions were totally unrelated in their origins. >The use of "foo" in computerology was initiated simultaneously by many >hundreds of computerists. >When we first received our IMSAI-8080 without disk drives, and with a >defective copy of ALOS-8, we entered programs by front panel paddles. >One would read the list while another did the entries. >Whenever I came to an entry such as "B000" or "F000" I would pronounce >"boo" or "foo" and would be corrected by son Pete: "No, you should >always spell it out "ef-zero-zero-zero" or we may end up with errors." >(You have no idea how rigid very young teenagers can be. "What's right >is right.") This is the first posting to have appeared in this topic which has tackled the problem of WHY these words became ubiquitous. I think the tale of using panel switches points at least in part to the reason, but there is more. Levy's book "Hackers" is probably the best reference for the early days of computing, particularly at the MIT AI Lab, and it revealed the underlying roots of many mysteries. It also pointed up the salient characteristics of those same hackers, from whose work has sprung so much of today's computing mythology. LISP is one of those languages which absolutely requires the programmer to keep handy a number of re-usable symbolic references. The only properties of these references are that they must be memorable, interchangeable but not likely to be confused in the heat of the moment and, above all else, easy to type. The choice of particular monosyllables is probably attributable to the keyboard habits of the local guru. My own choice has, for many years, been 'fred', which is a cycle of four keys under my frequently idle left index finger. To the best of my knowledge, 'fred' has never been an acronym for anything in my computing career, nor do I use 'fred' as a generic personal reference, it is simply a conveniently mnemonic symbolic reference. Within any community, certain traits/habits are likely to be reduced to standard ritual which, after a certain elapsed time become just the way things are. So, it would seem, with 'foo', 'bar', 'baz' etc. It is interesting to note that the ritual UNIX name 'junk' also lies moderately easily under a single finger of the right hand on the keyboard.... If anyone wants an interesting psychology project, perhaps they can poll active programmers for their preferred private symbolic references.... -- Robert Stanley Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 Voice: (613) 738-1440 (Research: there are 2!) 3755 Riverside Drive FAX: (613) 738-0002 Compuserve: 76174,3024 Ottawa, Ontario uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!roberts CANADA K1G 3Z4
mrk@gvgspd.UUCP (Michael R. Kesti) (10/11/87)
In article <1539@cognos.UUCP> roberts@cognos.UUCP (Robert Stanley) writes: > The choice of particular monosyllables is probably attributable to the >keyboard habits of the local guru. My own choice has, for many years, been >'fred', which is a cycle of four keys under my frequently idle left index >finger. I, too, use fred, and, unless it was subliminally supplied to me, thought that I had made this up myself. I had used it for years, and then began to discover that *MANY* others use it as well! This never fails to amaze me! Sorry to waste bandwidth for something so trivial, but, as I said, I am amazed! I would also be interested in other's favorites along these lines. -- =================================================================== Michael Kesti Grass Valley Group, Inc. P.O. Box 1114 Grass Valley, CA 95945 UUCP: ...!tektronix!gvgpsa!gvgspd!mrk
edward@engr.uky.edu (Edward C. Bennett) (10/12/87)
In article <313@gvgspd.UUCP> mrk@gvgspd.UUCP (Michael R. Kesti) writes: ]In article <1539@cognos.UUCP> roberts@cognos.UUCP (Robert Stanley) writes: ]> The choice of particular monosyllables is probably attributable to the ]>keyboard habits of the local guru. My own choice has, for many years, been ]>'fred', which is a cycle of four keys under my frequently idle left index ]>finger. ]I, too, use fred, and, unless it was subliminally supplied to me, thought ]that I had made this up myself. I had used it for years, and then began to ]discover that *MANY* others use it as well! This never fails to amaze me! I've used 'fred' as a throwaway name for years now. The origin of my reasoning can be seen when you consider some of the other names that I use. e.g. Barney, Betty, Wilma...etc. ;-) -- Edward C. Bennett DOMAIN: edward@engr.uky.edu UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!edward "Goodnight M.A." BITNET: edward%ukecc.uucp@ukma "He's become a growling, snarling white-hot mass of canine terror"
jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) (10/14/87)
In article <1539@cognos.UUCP>, roberts@cognos.uucp (Robert Stanley) writes: > In article <1632@chinet.UUCP> editor@chinet.UUCP (Alex Zell) writes: > > >So what has all this to do with "foo?" > >Nothing. The two expressions were totally unrelated in their origins. > >The use of "foo" in computerology was initiated simultaneously by many > >hundreds of computerists. > > >When we first received our IMSAI-8080 without disk drives, and with a > >defective copy of ALOS-8, we entered programs by front panel paddles. > >One would read the list while another did the entries. > > My own choice has, for many years, been > 'fred', which is a cycle of four keys under my frequently idle left index > finger. To the best of my knowledge, 'fred' has never been an acronym for > anything in my computing career, nor do I use 'fred' as a generic personal > reference, it is simply a conveniently mnemonic symbolic reference. > > It is > interesting to note that the ritual UNIX name 'junk' also lies moderately > easily under a single finger of the right hand on the keyboard.... > This person is obviously not a touch typist. Fred is under two fingers as is junk. Also, I disagree with the guy before that. I have seen computer texts dated pre-1974 (1972?) with references to MUMBLE.FOO , FOOBAR.DAT and all manner of other file names. The common item being, 6 letters in the file name and three in the file extension (no, that's file TYPE, not EXTENSION ;-) If fuzzy memory serves correctly, all of the machines I saw with names like this wre restricted to 9 letter file names. It seems only normal to what to use the full 9 letters ... FOOBAR, or so I heard, was a 6 letter hack on FUBAR, the original of which is well known. FOO's meaning only comes from FOOBAR, mostly since I do recall FOO pre-dates the 8008. If I remember (which you may have figured I really never do ;-) correctly, the IMSAI and ALTOS machines were octal in the beginning. (Actually, I don't think they were anything. Didn't they just have a switch registers and LED's above each paddle?) On to the world of FRED. F.R.E.D. is an anacronym. It's also the name of every computer you every didn't like. It stands for (blush) Fucking Ridiculous Electronic Device. As the founder of `The Internation Brotherhood of Freds' (Local 13), I can vouche for that. - John. -- John F. Haugh II HECI Exploration Co. Inc. UUCP: ...!ihnp4!killer!jfh 11910 Greenville Ave, Suite 600 "Don't Have an Oil Well?" Dallas, TX. 75243 " ... Then Buy One!" (214) 231-0993
gk@kksys.UUCP (Greg Kemnitz) (10/16/87)
In article <1810@killer.UUCP> jfh@killer.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: >recall FOO pre-dates the 8008. If I remember (which you may have figured >I really never do ;-) correctly, the IMSAI and ALTOS machines were >octal in the beginning. (Actually, I don't think they were anything. Didn't >they just have a switch registers and LED's above each paddle?) I assume you are referring to IMSAI and ALTAIR, rather than IMSAI and ALTOS. The ALTAIR front panel was originally designed with octal in mind -- the switches were grouped in threes, rather than fours. When IMSAI released their machine, they went with larger paddle switches physically grouped in eights, but color coded in groups of four. This made hex to binary conversions easier on the poor soul who had to bit-flip in their four thousand byte program. Most ALTAIR owners I know eventually masked off their front panel in groups of four to achieve this same convenience. -- Greg Kemnitz | amdahl \ K and K Systems | ihnp4 !meccts!kksys!gk P.O. Box 41804 | rutgers/ Plymouth, MN 55441-0804 | AT&T and clones: (612)475-1527
frank@zen.UUCP (Frank Wales) (10/17/87)
In article <313@gvgspd.UUCP> mrk@gvgspd.UUCP (Michael R. Kesti) writes: >In article <1539@cognos.UUCP> roberts@cognos.UUCP (Robert Stanley) writes: >>My own choice has, for many years, been 'fred', which is a cycle of >>four keys under my frequently idle left index finger. >I, too, use fred, and, unless it was subliminally supplied to me, thought >that I had made this up myself. I had used it for years, and then began to >discover that *MANY* others use it as well! This never fails to amaze me! "fred" is the number one random file name here too; others in common use are "bert" (?), "blip" (??), and "bill" and "dave" (guess whose equipment we use). As far as I know, *nobody* here use "foo". Frank Wales, [frank@zen.uucp<->uunet!mcvax!ukc!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd, Greenfield Rd, Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x220.
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (10/17/87)
As quoted from <313@gvgspd.UUCP> by mrk@gvgspd.UUCP (Michael R. Kesti): +--------------- | In article <1539@cognos.UUCP> roberts@cognos.UUCP (Robert Stanley) writes: | > The choice of particular monosyllables is probably attributable to the | >keyboard habits of the local guru. My own choice has, for many years, been | >'fred', which is a cycle of four keys under my frequently idle left index | >finger. | | I, too, use fred, and, unless it was subliminally supplied to me, thought | that I had made this up myself. I had used it for years, and then began to | discover that *MANY* others use it as well! This never fails to amaze me! +--------------- My friends tell me that I'm the only two-fingered typist they know who can outtype a 10-fingered typist. ;-) Anyway, my personal throwaway is "gorp", which is easily typed with alternating hands.... -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!mandrill!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>> "Just one word, Data: _it_didn't_happen_!" - Tasha Yar
patc@tekcrl.TEK.COM (Pat Caudill) (10/18/87)
In article <417@kksys.UUCP> gk@kksys.UUCP (Greg Kemnitz) writes: >The ALTAIR front panel was originally designed with octal in mind -- >the switches were grouped in threes, rather than fours. When IMSAI >released their machine, they went with larger paddle switches >physically grouped in eights, but color coded in groups of four. The build instructions for the IMSAI front panel said you could do it any way you wanted. They just gave you 8 red switches and 8 blue ones which would all fit next to each other. The directions said it most of your code to toggle in was octal to arrange them in groups of three but if it was hex to put groups of four. Nearly every one used groups of four though. Pat Caudill patc@tekcrl P.S. Mine is still being used but I get blank looks when I tell peoble at the local computer store what kind of computer I have.
gib@unirot.UUCP (the gibster) (10/25/87)
After a recent poll at my home site [the kiosk, not on the net yet] I found that the most popular random file names are (in order): fred, FRED, sam, junk, and crap.
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) (10/26/87)
In article <516@unirot.UUCP> gib@unirot.UUCP (the gibster) writes: >After a recent poll at my home site [the kiosk, not on the net yet] I found >that the most popular random file names are (in order): fred, FRED, sam, >junk, and crap. What, no ``asdf'' or ``qwer'' which happen to be my favorite two. I'll give anyone $5 if they can type any other four letter word with each key not located adjacent of each other faster than I can type ``asdf''. I've noticed that people around here usually use ``foo'' and ``bar'' more for example data types than filenames.
fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) (10/26/87)
In article <7640@ism780c.UUCP> mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) writes: >What, no ``asdf'' or ``qwer'' which happen to be my favorite two. >I'll give anyone $5 if they can type any other four letter word >with each key not located adjacent of each other faster than I can type >``asdf''. I've noticed that people around here usually use How about ``ffff''? I can type about 20 of those in 3 seconds :-) Of course, whether or not 'f' is adjacent to itself or not is debatable. BTW, my prefered junkfile name is 'junk', NOT 'fred'. -Fred -- # Fred Fish hao!noao!mcdsun!fnf (602) 438-3614 # Motorola Computer Division, 2900 S. Diablo Way, Tempe, Az 85282 USA
chou@husc2.UUCP (chou) (10/26/87)
In article <7640@ism780c.UUCP> mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) writes: >with each key not located adjacent of each other faster than I can type >``asdf''. I've noticed that people around here usually use >``foo'' and ``bar'' more for example data types than filenames. The bet is on. I always use "thid" since I've found that two hands are better than one. --Luyen Chou The Harvard Core Corps
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) (10/27/87)
In article <1322@husc2.UUCP> chou@husc2.UUCP (luyen chou) writes: >In article <7640@ism780c.UUCP> mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) writes: >>with each key not located adjacent of each other faster than I can type >>``asdf''. I've noticed that people around here usually use >>``foo'' and ``bar'' more for example data types than filenames. > > >The bet is on. I always use "thid" since I've found that two hands are better >than one. >--Luyen Chou >The Harvard Core Corps Right. Except in this case. I can arrange my fingers of my left hand so that it takes one motion for me to hit a-s-d-f. That beats both ``ffff'' and ``thid''. Try it, if you're skeptical. The 4-f sequence needs 4 motions to produce (also leads to a possibly confusing situation: ``Is that 8 f's or 9?''). Likewise, ``thid'' needs four contacts, although it's probably a lot quicker than ``ffff''. I can see where an experienced THID typer can approach the speed of an experienced ASDF typer, but never surpass him. Unless of course, the guy only had two fingers on his left hand, then there might be a chance. However, if you're skeptical, you can fly out here and we'll test it. Both on the same terminals (not the paper-tty types) and we'll see. Should come in the summer, though, many more sights... -MikeP {sdcrdcf|attunix|microsoft|sfmin}!ism780c!mikep ps - notice that this is crossposted to talk.bizarre and followups are directed there. It hasn't gotten wild enough to go into alt.flame, but we can keep on trying.
adam@cunixc.UUCP (11/06/87)
[I directed followups to sci.lang because this article wanders a bit
from news discussion.]
It's been interesting reading the arguments about which junk
file names/metasyntactics/whatever people use, but I was particularly
interested by the short argument about which ones were faster to type,
which brought forth such examples as ffff, asdfjkl, etc.
I do not use that sort of name, ever. Usually when I am using a junk
filename or variable I want to keep track of what it is, at least for a
short time, and I think the slight typing-speed benefits of amorphous
combinations of home keys and so on are overshadowed by a measure of
difficulty in remembering exactly what was used when you need it again.
This especially applies to series of junk names. It's not too hard to
remember asdf, but if I need four temporary placeholders I usually
resort to the venerable series "foo, bar, baz, quux" of old-hacker fame.
By now I am so familiar with it, having read with a kind of unearned
nostalgia all those ai-lab documents from Before My Time, that it is
quite automatic and no strain on my memory.
That series is particularly useful in describing algorithms, which lisp
hackers like me do a great deal. "You have foo, and foo calls bar with
variables A and B, and bar swaps the locs, but this is real lisp, so...
and..." that sort of thing. Usually the metas stand for functions and
ordinary letters are used for variables.
When I need to assign filenames I often resort to weird-sounding names,
which I remember >by virtue< of their weirdness. (Foo, bar, etc. almost
never are filenames by me.) On-the-spot sort of things like blep,
splatter, crabbaz, dogma, woof, dorm, sping, tworp, gobble, ting, hogy,
rilke, tasma, frod, and stabbot come to mind. (All names in my delete log
file.) Notice that they are mostly reasonably pronounceable and
transcribable; I have a good "sound" memory (no, I am >not< ashamed to
admit it -- my visual ain't bad either) and am very likely to remember
what something sounded like before the letter sequence I typed, so this
is an efficient system for me.
I have a feeling that I'd be quite slowed down if I used names like
"ffff" and so on. I just about never make spelling mistakes, in any
language, >once I have learned (or believe I have learned) what a word
sounds like.< This is true even for words which sound nothing like they
look, which is what seems a little puzzling. And it holds when my
pronunciation is completely wrong, so long as I have one. I suppose in
some sense I must "file" my words away primarily "by sound," as opposed
to by visual pattern. On the other hand I read and write (well, type)
very quickly, certainly not "sounding out" each word as I go along.
>Until I slow down.< When I slow my writing, or reading, to puzzle
over a point, I do in fact sound out the words in my mind.
And, now that I think about it --
When I type dictation, I occasionally type a homonym of the word I just
heard, even if I have been following the content as I go along (and thus
know in some sense which word is required.) I am backspacing to correct
the error before I even am conscious of it. Recently I have been doing
that even when typing while composing. (Which is how I write; I never
handwrite -- much too slow, I forget what I was thinking. I need to
write at a rate comparable to measured speech. On the other hand I, and
almost all people I know, can not compose poetry when typing. This is a
demonstration of the essential difference between poetry and
non-poetry.) But I find it interesting that, as I get used to
typing/composing faster and faster, homonym problems sometimes pop up.
One interesting point is that I have a pretty good musical memory;
perfect pitch, etc. This never helped me much in playing but I do wonder
strongly if it's a related factor.
Sorry if this long article, which diverges completely from the original
point, has bored you all to death. I'd love to hear from other people
the experiences, thoughts, personal quirks etc. in this area. It's a
fascinating subject, of course, when you start noticing "restrictions"
or patterns in the way your own mind works, though most of the
speculation I've heard is a bit too mechanistic for my taste. That's why
I felt a bit funny above about writing about the brain "filing away"
things under sound -- I'm not used to that sort of view.
cat
--
--------------