On 20 April 2016 at 15:51, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wandering even further off topic, I think that using the verb "to code" is
> a convention
> with the effect, intentional or not, of diminishing the importance of
> programming
> in a problem-solving situation. Not always, but sometimes.
>
> For example, a graduate student (say, in physics) will
> "solve" a problem by thinking etc, and maybe produce some"code"
> to test a hypothesis.
> Historically, at least, such work was considered one-off, not to be
> read or run by anyone else.
>
> Times change, and "code" seems to have become equivalent to
> "program". Though I think "coder" sound more like a "junior programmer
> who is merely performing the tedious work of writing something into
> a programming language ... something he/.she may not comprehend
> at all". And there is the usage of "finite element code" yet "elementary
> function library".
And then there were "coding sheets" -- special pads of paper on which
one wrote ones code in pencil, with Fortran-friendly features such as
the first 5 columns were for labels, you put a C in column 6 for a
continuation line, and columns 73-80 were also special. After careful
proofreading these could be given to a clerk who knew no programming
but could type well, and the result was a deck of punched cards handed
back to you a few hours later. I actually got paid for this in the
summer of '76, happy days....
>
>
> Another example of words changing meaning ... "hacker" meant someone
> who cleverly used programs (or devices) for purposes other than what
> was initially intended. Often amusing. Now it seems to be used
> with negative connotation ( hacker == cyber-criminal).
>
> For an early collection of clever hacks,. google for HAKMEM
> RJF
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 2:12:32 AM UTC-7, Erik Bray wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Fredrik Johansson
>> <fredrik....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 9:34:13 AM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:11 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Kwankyu Lee <ekwa...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> Which one is correct?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> (1) "This is based on code by A and B"
>> >> >> (2) "This is based on codes by A and B"
>> >> >> (3) "This is based on the codes by A and B"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am just curious. I am not a native English speaker.
>> >> >
>> >> > In American, (1) is correct.
>> >> >
>> >> > I just did Google searches for the exact string "This is based on the
>> >> > codes by" and "This is based on codes by" and it says "No results
>> >> > found" in both cases, so (2) and (3) are definitely wrong in English.
>> >>
>> >> I'm surprised no results came up. Something I noticed quickly when I
>> >> first started working with astronomers and astrophysicists was that
>> >> it's not uncommon for researchers in those fields to refer to their
>> >> software as "codes". I usually don't say anything directly to them
>> >> because I don't want to be a pedantic jerk. But it always just struck
>> >> me as odd, and I've complained about it a few times in other contexts.
>> >> It doesn't help that many researchers don't have strong programming
>> >> backgrounds and see even open source software as something of a black
>> >> box--and to me calling it "codes" only makes it worse. As if it's a
>> >> pile of cryptic runes to be decoded. But it's just a linguistic
>> >> oddity I guess :)
>> >
>> >
>> > Every field has its own jargon, and countable "code" is simply
>> > established
>> > lingo in parts of the scientific computing community, appearing in tens
>> > of
>> > thousands of papers. It usually has a more narrow meaning: "a code" is a
>> > polished software package for a specific numerical or scientific task
>> > ("a
>> > code for plasma simulation", "a comparison of finite element codes"),
>> > not an
>> > arbitrary sampling of source code. "Codes" is certainly incorrect in any
>> > other context, but I think "correcting" the domain-specific usage is
>> > overly
>> > pedantic. "Algebra" to most people is something uncountable, but
>> > theoretical
>> > mathematicians are perfectly fine with "algebras"...
>>
>> I agree that it's jargon and not worth fighting. There's nothing
>> "wrong" about it--there can't possibly be. It just strikes me as odd,
>> and does in my mind have a negative connotation, though it doesn't for
>> anyone actually working in those fields so who cares.
>>
>> "Algebras" struck me as odd too before I ever actually learned
>> advanced algebra :) Perhaps one slight difference there is that it
>> actually is a technical term with a precise definition (in the sense
>> of an algebra over a field). Where as "a code" in this sense is more
>> of a cultural jargon. I would also argue that the level of "polish"
>> of physical "codes" varies widely, though they do usually have a
>> narrow usage.
>>
>> Anyways sorry for continuing this off-topic thread--I just find it
>> interesting and amusing :)
>>
>> Erik
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sage-devel" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
