On 2011-05-25, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > I know many people who have no idea what a directory is, let alone a > subdirectory, unless it's the phone directory. They're non-computer > users. Once they start using computers, they quickly work out what the > word means in context, or they ask and get told, and then they've learned > a new word and never need ask again. This is a good thing. > > The idiom of "recursively delete" is no different. Of course some people > will have to learn a new term in order to make sense of it. So what?
OK, but the addition of recursive, is not really usefull, is it? Deleting the directory says it, doesn't it? >> Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their >> garden? I burn them. > > I know many people who incinerate leaves in an incinerator. Or at least > they used to, until the government here banned it. It might only have > been a 44 gallon drum with holes punched in the side, but they still > called it an incinerator. > > I learned that word from my father, who left school at 14 to work in a > shoe shop. He isn't especially educated, doesn't read much beyond the > daily tabloid, and thinks Benny Hill is the height of wit. But he's not > an idiot and even at 72 is capable of learning new words. Is it that widespread? I figured most people woul speak of burning. OK, my bad if it is. >>> 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. > > Why do you think they're called "microwave ovens" instead of "fizzbaz > ovens"? Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that they > cook with microwaves? > > So not actually "just a name" at all. It's a jargon description of the > implementation of the oven. True, but I meant that they just use it as a name. I don't think many people would actually try to find out what a microwave is. >>> 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. > > What's a gas pedal? Is that some strange American term for what most of > the English-speaking world knows as the accelerator? *wink* Oh, come one. I'm sure I've heard that often enough NOT to have imagined it. >> Oh, and it's break pedal, not descellarator. (sp?) > That would be brake, and decelerator. Sorry. But I actually have a excuse for those. (see below) ;-) >> I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with. > > You can't force people to learn new words, although you would be > surprised how even the most disinterested, lazy speaker manages to pick > up vocabulary without even being aware of it. I know, I'm one. > But nor do you have to pander to the slackers. They can learn the word, > or not, I don't care. If I'm writing for an audience of children, or > English as a second language, or the otherwise linguistically challenged, Third, actually. But I do try. ;-) > I'll simplify my vocabulary appropriately. For everyone else, I'll use an > ordinary adult vocabulary, and that includes the word "recursion" or > "recursive". It's hardly technical jargon -- I've found a discussion of > gangsta rap that uses it. Even children understand the concept of > recursion (self-reference). People put it in comedies like Blazing > Saddles and Space Balls! How difficult is it to put a name to the concept? > > >> 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. > > Pedantic... that's another one of those academic words that need to be > explained to lay people, isn't it? As is academic itself, and in fact > "lay people". Who uses "lay people" in conversation? That (lay people) was atually a quote, from someone who actually used it in this thread. >> widespread, usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless >> effort if pointless, even when comming from a physicist. :-) > > I think you *grossly* underestimate how many words people know, > particularly if you include so-called "passive vocabulary" (words people > can understand in context, but not define precisely). See, for example: > > http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/howmany.htm Got a point, there. -- When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
