Re: [RFC] Backend vs. back-end (was: 2 'echo' bash instructions produce a table)

[Ihor Radchenko]

Ihor Radchenko  writes:

> It looks like "backend" is more popular at the end.
>
> I will go for it everywhere unless there are objections.

Done on main.
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git/commit/?id=f81ba451a

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

Re: [RFC] Backend vs. back-end (was: 2 'echo' bash instructions produce a table)

[Samuel Wales]

backend sounds good to me as a native speaker, for a term of art for
export modules or so, with defined api.  if you are talking about back
end code abstractly, i'd go for 2 words, but that's just me.  i
wouldn't rely on my sense for this one.

On 11/22/22, Ihor Radchenko  wrote:
> alain.coch...@unistra.fr writes:
>
>> PS 1: In the manual, I see "backend" and "back-end".  So it is an
>> issue similar to the "subtree/sub-tree" issue you fixed a few days
>> ago, to the "heading/headline" issue that was reported recently, and
>> to many similar cases I met in the past.  So I was wondering if there
>> could exist some (semi-)automatic way which would ensure that future
>> maintainers will not inadvertently re-introduce "sub-tree"
>> occurrences, or the like.  Perhaps some "accepted terminology" list
>> that would be checked upon?
>
> I looked into the manual. It has 197 instances of "back-end" and 24
> instances of "backend". In the code, "backend" is used almost exclusively
> in symbol names (except 5 instances), and "back-end" is used in the
> docstrings and comments.
>
> It is actually a bit confusing.
>
> I am looking at https://techterms.com/definition/backend, and it looks
> like "backend" is the correct word we need to use here. Am I missing
> something?
>
> --
> Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
> Org mode contributor,
> Learn more about Org mode at .
> Support Org development at ,
> or support my work at 
>
>


-- 
The Kafka Pandemic

A blog about science, health, human rights, and misopathy:
https://thekafkapandemic.blogspot.com

Re: [RFC] Backend vs. back-end (was: 2 'echo' bash instructions produce a table)

[Ihor Radchenko]

alain.coch...@unistra.fr writes:

>  > I looked further, and the situation is not as simple.
>  > https://grammarhow.com/backend-back-end-or-back-end/, for example,
>  > claims that only "back-end" is grammatically correct.
>  > 
>  > I am now thinking to do the following:
>  > 1. Use "backend" in the code symbols
>  > 2. Use "back-end" in docstrings and the manual.
>  > 
>  > Would it make sense?
>
>
> It is not clear to me why it would be a problem to use 'backend' in
> code symbols as well, but the only important thing for me as a user is
> that the terminology be consistent throughout the documentation.  So
> yes, it makes sense.
>
> The link you provide is very convincing.  Will it still hold in 5 or
> 10 year from now?  (see end of
> https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html)

Well. This is a tricky subject.
5-10 years from now the grammar itself may change.
At the end, even Oxford Dictionary my link is referring to, when
defending that "backend" without hyphen is wrong, is not setting
standards, but just reflecting the existing ones.

If we look into
https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/117383/what-is-the-correct-term-back-end-back-end-or-backend
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontend_and_backend, "backend" is
also used.

I am attaching Google trends stats for search term usage of "backend",
"back-end", and "back end".

It looks like "backend" is more popular at the end.

I will go for it everywhere unless there are objections.

P.S. It really feels a bit silly trying to weigh on this subject.


-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

Re: [RFC] Backend vs. back-end (was: 2 'echo' bash instructions produce a table)

[Alain . Cochard]

Ihor Radchenko writes on Mon 20 Feb 2023 10:07:

 > I looked further, and the situation is not as simple.
 > https://grammarhow.com/backend-back-end-or-back-end/, for example,
 > claims that only "back-end" is grammatically correct.
 > 
 > I am now thinking to do the following:
 > 1. Use "backend" in the code symbols
 > 2. Use "back-end" in docstrings and the manual.
 > 
 > Would it make sense?


It is not clear to me why it would be a problem to use 'backend' in
code symbols as well, but the only important thing for me as a user is
that the terminology be consistent throughout the documentation.  So
yes, it makes sense.

The link you provide is very convincing.  Will it still hold in 5 or
10 year from now?  (see end of
https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/email.html)

-- 
EOST (École et Observatoire des Sciences de la Terre) 
ITE (Institut Terre & Environnement) | alain.coch...@unistra.fr
5 rue René Descartes   [bureau 110]  | Phone: +33 (0)3 68 85 50 44 
F-67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France | [ slot available for rent ]

Re: [RFC] Backend vs. back-end (was: 2 'echo' bash instructions produce a table)

[Ihor Radchenko]

Ihor Radchenko  writes:

> I am looking at https://techterms.com/definition/backend, and it looks
> like "backend" is the correct word we need to use here. Am I missing
> something?

I looked further, and the situation is not as simple.
https://grammarhow.com/backend-back-end-or-back-end/, for example,
claims that only "back-end" is grammatically correct.

I am now thinking to do the following:
1. Use "backend" in the code symbols
2. Use "back-end" in docstrings and the manual.

Would it make sense?

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at 

[RFC] Backend vs. back-end (was: 2 'echo' bash instructions produce a table)

[Ihor Radchenko]

alain.coch...@unistra.fr writes:

> PS 1: In the manual, I see "backend" and "back-end".  So it is an
> issue similar to the "subtree/sub-tree" issue you fixed a few days
> ago, to the "heading/headline" issue that was reported recently, and
> to many similar cases I met in the past.  So I was wondering if there
> could exist some (semi-)automatic way which would ensure that future
> maintainers will not inadvertently re-introduce "sub-tree"
> occurrences, or the like.  Perhaps some "accepted terminology" list
> that would be checked upon?

I looked into the manual. It has 197 instances of "back-end" and 24
instances of "backend". In the code, "backend" is used almost exclusively
in symbol names (except 5 instances), and "back-end" is used in the
docstrings and comments.

It is actually a bit confusing.

I am looking at https://techterms.com/definition/backend, and it looks
like "backend" is the correct word we need to use here. Am I missing
something?

-- 
Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at .
Support Org development at ,
or support my work at