Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #5626 > unrolled thread

English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 15:26 -0700
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 17:20 -0600
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Martin P. Hellwig" <martin.hellwig@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 22:22 +0000
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 09:42 +1000
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Steven W. Orr" <steveo@syslang.net> - 2011-05-17 21:16 -0400
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> - 2011-05-18 04:51 +0000
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-05-18 07:19 +0200
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively tar@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) - 2011-05-17 23:42 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 09:26 +0100
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively tar@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) - 2011-05-18 09:16 -0700
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 19:11 +0100
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Raymond Wiker <raw@RAWMBP-2.local> - 2011-05-18 20:20 +0200
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 19:39 +0100
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Raymond Wiker <raw@RAWMBP-2.local> - 2011-05-18 21:09 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 21:02 +0100
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Raymond Wiker <raw@RAWMBP-2.local> - 2011-05-18 22:40 +0200
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-19 05:56 +0100
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively tar@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) - 2011-05-19 16:14 -0700
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 04:41 +1000
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 04:12 +1000
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-05-18 20:57 +0200
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively tar@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) - 2011-05-19 16:17 -0700
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2011-05-20 02:38 +0200
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Antti J Ylikoski <antti.ylikoski@tkk.fi> - 2011-05-20 12:00 +0300
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-18 22:09 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 06:14 -0700
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-19 11:06 +1000
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-21 09:32 +0100
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:52 +0200
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:54 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-05-21 11:56 +0200
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-21 15:34 +0000
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> - 2011-05-20 06:50 +0000
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-17 23:06 -0700
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Harrison Hill <harrishill@gmx.com> - 2011-05-17 23:50 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:16 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-18 22:19 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:16 -0700
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-30 22:58 +1000
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively see@sig.for.address (Victor Eijkhout) - 2011-05-18 12:59 -0500
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> - 2011-05-20 06:54 +0000
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 17:10 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:28 -0700
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Peter Moylan <invalid@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2011-05-30 23:02 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:28 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Glenn Knickerbocker <NotR@bestweb.net> - 2011-05-18 16:54 -0400
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:58 -0600
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 00:10 -0700
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 08:32 -0600
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 08:15 -0700
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 09:43 -0600
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 09:12 +0100
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Espen Vestre <espen@vestre.net> - 2011-05-18 10:20 +0200
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-19 23:21 +0200
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-20 05:28 +0100
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-23 20:48 +0200
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-19 22:13 -0700
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-20 06:55 +0000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-20 09:48 +0100
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-05-20 10:21 -0700
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-23 20:56 +0200
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-24 00:18 +0000
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-25 00:06 +0200
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 10:40 +1000
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 14:18 -0700
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 14:19 -0700
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 23:05 -0700
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-25 09:26 +0200
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 00:51 -0700
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 17:59 +1000
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 21:59 +0000
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 10:48 +0200
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-26 10:06 +0000
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 12:46 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively harrismh777 <harrismh777@charter.net> - 2011-05-27 09:31 -0500
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 22:58 +0000
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 14:00 +1000
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 10:59 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively "Charles" <C.Sanders@DeleteThis.Bom.GOV.AU> - 2011-05-26 20:58 +1000
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 21:12 +1000
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 14:38 -0700
                            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 07:46 +1000
                              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 15:54 -0700
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 14:38 -0700
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-05-26 13:20 +0200
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 21:28 +1000
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 14:51 -0700
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-28 21:36 +0200
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 05:58 +1000
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-29 00:49 +0000
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-30 23:04 +0200
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-30 23:17 +0000
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 07:28 +1000
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2011-05-30 23:10 +0200
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:58 -0700
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 07:27 +1000
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:39 -0700
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Mike Barnes <mikebarnes@bluebottle.com> - 2011-05-18 10:25 +0100
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-18 13:00 -0700
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-05-18 21:19 +0100
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Lanarcam <lanarcam1@yahoo.fr> - 2011-05-18 22:33 +0200
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Mike Barnes <mikebarnes@bluebottle.com> - 2011-05-18 22:00 +0100
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-20 08:10 +0100
          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 13:22 -0700
            Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 08:46 +1000
              Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-22 16:17 -0700
                Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 09:32 +1000
                  Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-23 21:20 -0700
                    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 14:28 +1000
                      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> - 2011-05-24 10:40 -0700
                        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 08:14 +1000
                          Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-05-25 10:15 +0000
        Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 13:32 -0700
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-20 08:07 +0100
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2011-05-18 13:07 -0700
    Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.COM> - 2011-05-20 08:00 +0100
      Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-05-27 22:56 -0700

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#6089

On 2011-05-20, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:13:14 -0700, rusi wrote:
>
>> [I agree with you Xah that recursion is a technical word that should not
>> be foisted onto lay users.]
>
> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the 
> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of 
> understanding recursion.

Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence?
The point was not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to
understand in order to use. 



-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.
                -- Ken Thompson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6104

On Mon, 23 May 2011 20:56:03 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:

> On 2011-05-20, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2011 22:13:14 -0700, rusi wrote:
>>
>>> [I agree with you Xah that recursion is a technical word that should
>>> not be foisted onto lay users.]
>>
>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
>> understanding recursion.
> 
> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point was
> not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to understand
> in order to use.


Maybe they don't "need" to understand recursion. So what?

Recursion is a perfectly good English word, no more technical than 
"accelerate" or "incinerate" or "dissolve" or "combustion". Do people 
need to know the word "combustion" when they could say "burn" instead? Do 
they need to know the words "microwave oven" when they could be saying 
"invisible rays cooking thing"?

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?

Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem 
that they don't need to know?



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6186

On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
>>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
>>> understanding recursion.
>> 
>> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point was
>> not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to understand
>> in order to use.
>
> Maybe they don't "need" to understand recursion. So what?

I think you should read the earlier posts again, this is drifting so far
from what I intended.

What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than one
person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
recursively?' meant. BAut never have I been asked to explain what 'Do you
wish to delete this directory and it's subdirs/with all it's contents?'
meant. Never.
 

> Recursion is a perfectly good English word, no more technical than 
> "accelerate" or "incinerate" or "dissolve" or "combustion". Do people 
> need to know the word "combustion" when they could say "burn" instead? 

It wasn't about the word, but about the nature of the function. Besides, if
the chance exists of a confusion between a recursive job and the fact the
job is done using a recursive function... I would try staying away from the
expression.  

Why not use 'delete a directory'. It's obvious the content gets binned, too.


Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their garden? 
I burn them.


> 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.


> 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. Oh, and it's break pedal, not
descellarator. (sp?)


> Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem 
> that they don't need to know?

I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.

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. Especially if there is a widespread,
usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless effort if
pointless, even when comming from a physicist.  :-)


-- 
When in doubt, use brute force.
                -- Ken Thompson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6191

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> Why not use 'delete a directory'. It's obvious the content gets binned, too.

Which is why I raised the issue with regard to other operations.
Manipulating files matching a glob can be done recursively or
nonrecursively, and both make perfect sense.

> Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their garden?
> I burn them.

We used to incinerate ours (until we stopped using rapid exothermic
oxidation as a means of DECREFfing our garden waste). It's a cultural
thing, I guess.

>> 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.

It's funny how a single piece of jargon can go incredibly mainstream.
"Microwave" (with or without "oven" after it) is well known, but
plenty else remains obscure.

>> 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. Oh, and it's break pedal, not
> descellarator. (sp?)

Americans might call it a gas pedal. We call it an accelerator. You
don't have a "decelerator pedal" though, because it's more accurately
called a "brake pedal" because it controls the brakes.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that people *should* have some basic
understanding of Newton's laws before they take charge of a ton of
high-powered machinery. At very least, some basic comprehension of
kinetic energy, and the way a high speed train has a *LOT* of it.
Might result in drivers with a little more respect for trains and
trucks.

>> Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem
>> that they don't need to know?
>
> I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.
>
> 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. Especially if there is a widespread,
> usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless effort if
> pointless, even when comming from a physicist.  :-)

In any industry, you can find jargon in several different categories:

1) Terms that describe unique objects/effects/etc, where you would be
using a lengthy phrase otherwise (eg "URL")

2) Terms that are clearer or more precise than the less-jargonny
equivalents, but where you could get away with dodging jargon if you
wanted to (eg "recursive operation")

3) Words and phrases that have little value to an end user, but can be
used to show off your skill (eg "Network Destabilisation from Low
Voltage Fluorescent Lamp Spikes").

I would never apologise for using terms in the first category. Just
explain them (in a footnote if necessary) and expect people to be
accurate. The third category is mainly used for invoking Dummy Mode
(if you don't know what that is, google my example - it's vintage
BOFH), and should be avoided. It's the middle lot that are harder. Do
you use it and risk people not understanding, or avoid it and risk
people misunderstanding? Tough choice, especially since those who
misunderstand often won't know why.

If we forever aim to the stupidest of humans, the human race will get
stupider. If we forever aim way above people's heads, they won't
bother to communicate. An eternal dilemma.

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6576

On May 24, 7:40 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 <skunkwo...@rikishi42.net> wrote:
> > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:

> >> 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. Oh, and it's break pedal, not
> > descellarator. (sp?)
>
> Americans might call it a gas pedal. We call it an accelerator. You
> don't have a "decelerator pedal" though, because it's more accurately
> called a "brake pedal" because it controls the brakes.

Actually the same argument could be applied to your observation of the
driver to vehicle interface. You say "brake petal" simple because it
controls the brakes. Well then what does the "accelerator" control
then?

Most wise observers would blubber... "I know, I know, it controls the
gas!"...and while partially correct they would be mostly wrong. Yes it
does control the "gas" but not in a direct way. Of course technically
it depends on implementation (a favorite word around c.l.py it seems
*rolls-eyes*).

In the days of carburetors the "accelerator" actually controlled a big
flap. This "big flap" (An attribute of which many round here seem to
posses and use generously) is opened to allow air to enter and the gas
is mixed into the air by secondary effect.

So if we really wanted to get pedantic we should call it an "air
petal"? However considering that any vehicle made after the early
nineties is fuel injected (which is controlled by a computer!) then we
may want to call it a "puter petal" to be precise.

Note: The remainder of your post was lucid and informative.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6577

On May 24, 7:40 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Rikishi42 <skunkwo...@rikishi42.net> wrote:
> > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:

> >> 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. Oh, and it's break pedal, not
> > descellarator. (sp?)
>
> Americans might call it a gas pedal. We call it an accelerator. You
> don't have a "decelerator pedal" though, because it's more accurately
> called a "brake pedal" because it controls the brakes.

Actually the same argument could be applied to your observation of the
driver to vehicle interface. You say "brake petal" simple because it
controls the brakes. Well then what does the "accelerator" control
then?

Most wise observers would blubber... "I know, I know, it controls the
gas!"...and while partially correct they would be mostly wrong. Yes it
does control the "gas" but not in a direct way. Of course technically
it depends on implementation (a favorite word around c.l.py it seems
*rolls-eyes*).

In the days of carburetors the "accelerator" actually controlled a big
flap. This "big flap" (An attribute of which many round here seem to
posses and use generously) is opened to allow air to enter and the gas
is mixed into the air by secondary effect.

So if we really wanted to get pedantic we should call it an "air
petal"? However considering that any vehicle made after the early
nineties is fuel injected (which is controlled by a computer!) then we
may want to call it a "puter petal" to be precise.

Note: The remainder of your post was lucid and informative.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6196

On May 24, 3:06 pm, Rikishi42 <skunkwo...@rikishi42.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> >>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
> >>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
> >>> understanding recursion.
>
> >> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point was
> >> not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to understand
> >> in order to use.
>
> > Maybe they don't "need" to understand recursion. So what?
>
> I think you should read the earlier posts again, this is drifting so far
> from what I intended.
>
> What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than one
> person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
> recursively?' meant. BAut never have I been asked to explain what 'Do you
> wish to delete this directory and it's subdirs/with all it's contents?'
> meant. Never.
>
> > Recursion is a perfectly good English word, no more technical than
> > "accelerate" or "incinerate" or "dissolve" or "combustion". Do people
> > need to know the word "combustion" when they could say "burn" instead?
>
> It wasn't about the word, but about the nature of the function. Besides, if
> the chance exists of a confusion between a recursive job and the fact the
> job is done using a recursive function... I would try staying away from the
> expression.  
>
> Why not use 'delete a directory'. It's obvious the content gets binned, too.
>
> Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their garden?
> I burn them.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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. Oh, and it's break pedal, not
> descellarator. (sp?)
>
> > Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem
> > that they don't need to know?
>
> I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.
>
> 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. Especially if there is a widespread,
> usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless effort if
> pointless, even when comming from a physicist.  :-)

very well said, Rikishi42.

this one is probably the most intelligent post in this thread.

 Xah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6199

* Rikishi42 (Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200)
> 
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> >>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
> >>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
> >>> understanding recursion.
> >> 
> >> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point was
> >> not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to understand
> >> in order to use.
> >
> > Maybe they don't "need" to understand recursion. So what?
> 
> I think you should read the earlier posts again, this is drifting so far
> from what I intended.
> 
> What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than one
> person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
> recursively?' meant. BAut never have I been asked to explain what 'Do you
> wish to delete this directory and it's subdirs/with all it's contents?'
> meant. Never.

Naming something in the terms of its implementation details (in this 
case recursion) is a classical WTF.

On the other hand, it's by far not the only WTF in Unix. For instance, 
how often have you read "unlink" instead of "delete"? Or "directory" 
instead of "folder", pointing out that "directory" is the correct term 
because a directory is just a listing and does not "contain" the actual 
files. Of course these implementation details will never matter to 
anyone except under the rarest conditions.

Thorsten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6205

On May 25, 12:26 am, Thorsten Kampe <thors...@thorstenkampe.de> wrote:
> * Rikishi42 (Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> > >>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
> > >>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
> > >>> understanding recursion.
>
> > >> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point was
> > >> not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to understand
> > >> in order to use.
>
> > > Maybe they don't "need" to understand recursion. So what?
>
> > I think you should read the earlier posts again, this is drifting so far
> > from what I intended.
>
> > What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than one
> > person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
> > recursively?' meant. BAut never have I been asked to explain what 'Do you
> > wish to delete this directory and it's subdirs/with all it's contents?'
> > meant. Never.
>
> Naming something in the terms of its implementation details (in this
> case recursion) is a classical WTF.
>
> On the other hand, it's by far not the only WTF in Unix. For instance,
> how often have you read "unlink" instead of "delete"? Or "directory"
> instead of "folder", pointing out that "directory" is the correct term
> because a directory is just a listing and does not "contain" the actual
> files. Of course these implementation details will never matter to
> anyone except under the rarest conditions.
>
> Thorsten

well said.

half of posts in this thread are from idiots. just incredible, but
again, its newsgroups ... what am i thinking ...

 Xah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6206

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Xah Lee <xahlee@gmail.com> wrote:
> well said.
>
> half of posts in this thread are from idiots. just incredible, but
> again, its newsgroups ... what am i thinking ...
>
>  Xah
>

Thank you. As soon as we figure out which half of us you just publicly
insulted, we'll see about getting offended. Until then, thank you for
your contribution and please, have a nice day.

Chris Angelico
removing tongue from cheek

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6269

On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:26:11 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:

> Naming something in the terms of its implementation details (in this
> case recursion) is a classical WTF.

*If* that's true, it certainly doesn't seem to apply to real-world 
objects. Think about the exceptions:

microwave oven
vacuum cleaner
oven fries
electric car
chain saw
flintlock rifle
air gun
vulcanised rubber
kerosene heater
aluminium foil
diamond saw
gas stove
wood stove
four-wheel drive car
incandescent light bulb
electric razor
unleaded petrol

to mention only a few.

Naming the thing after the implementation would often seem to be *good 
advice*, not bad. We often do care about implementations. You really do 
need to know whether the car you drive uses leaded or unleaded.

Being able to swap implementations without changing the interface is an 
abstraction that doesn't apply all the time, in either code or real life.




-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6305

* Steven D'Aprano (25 May 2011 21:59:58 GMT)
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 09:26:11 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> 
> > Naming something in the terms of its implementation details (in this
> > case recursion) is a classical WTF.
> 
> *If* that's true, it certainly doesn't seem to apply to real-world 
> objects. Think about the exceptions:
> 
> microwave oven
> vacuum cleaner
> oven fries
> electric car
> chain saw
> flintlock rifle
> air gun
> vulcanised rubber
> kerosene heater
> aluminium foil
> diamond saw
> gas stove
> wood stove
> four-wheel drive car
> incandescent light bulb
> electric razor
> unleaded petrol
> 
> to mention only a few.
> 
> Naming the thing after the implementation would often seem to be *good 
> advice*, not bad. We often do care about implementations. You really do 
> need to know whether the car you drive uses leaded or unleaded.

That's exactly the point. You don't need to know whether "include sub-
directories" was implemented recursively. It's absolutely pointless.

But not to digress, the /real/ problem with commands or idioms like "rm 
-r" is /not/ their choice of option names but that they explain these 
options in the exact same terms. No one would have a problem with "-r, 
--recursive -- remove directories including all sub-directories" instead 
of "-r, --recursive -- remove directories and their contents 
recursively".

Thorsten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6307

On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:48:07 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:

> But not to digress, the /real/ problem with commands or idioms like "rm
> -r" is /not/ their choice of option names but that they explain these
> options in the exact same terms. No one would have a problem with "-r,
> --recursive -- remove directories including all sub-directories" instead
> of "-r, --recursive -- remove directories and their contents
> recursively".

I think you are understanding the description "remove directories and 
their contents recursively" as a description of the *mechanism* by which 
rm removes the directory, i.e. some recursive tree-walking function that 
visits each node and deletes it.

I don't believe that's how the description is meant to be understood. I 
understand it as describing the effect, not the implementation. If the 
tree-walker was re-written to be iterative, the description would not 
need to be changed. It is meant to be understood as:

rm -r foo

* deletes foo
* deletes things inside foo
* if any of those things inside foo are directories, delete them too, in 
exactly the same way (i.e. "recursively").

Notice that, strictly speaking, the description is impossible. You can't 
delete the top level directory first. But that's how the human reader 
will understand it: 

* delete the directory you point it at, plus the things inside it in the 
same way

rather than how the implementation (probably) does it:

* drill down all the way to the bottom, start deleting like mad, and work 
your way back up the stack, deleting as you go.


You're interpreting the reference to "recursive" as a nod to the 
implementation. I'm not, and therefore your arguments don't convince me.


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6311

* Steven D'Aprano (26 May 2011 10:06:44 GMT)
> 
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:48:07 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
> 
> > But not to digress, the /real/ problem with commands or idioms like "rm
> > -r" is /not/ their choice of option names but that they explain these
> > options in the exact same terms. No one would have a problem with "-r,
> > --recursive -- remove directories including all sub-directories" instead
> > of "-r, --recursive -- remove directories and their contents
> > recursively".
> 
> I think you are understanding the description "remove directories and 
> their contents recursively" as a description of the *mechanism* by which 
> rm removes the directory, i.e. some recursive tree-walking function that 
> visits each node and deletes it.
> 
> I don't believe that's how the description is meant to be understood. I 
> understand it as describing the effect, not the implementation.

It doesn't matter how I interprete the explanation "-r = recursively 
delete". What matters is that I have to explain (interpret, translate 
the explanation.

> You're interpreting the reference to "recursive" as a nod to the
> implementation. I'm not, and therefore your arguments don't convince
> me.

No one understands what "recursively delete" means until someone 
explains ("translates") it to him. This is not an argument but a simple 
fact. I experienced it many times, others here in the thread did and 
probably you, too.

"recursively delete" is completely unneccessary because there is already 
a simple explanation that everyone understands without translation 
("delete including subdirectories").

It's unnecessary bullshit buzzword bingo from nerds which adds or helps 
or explains nothing. It's just that simple.

Thorsten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6392

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> You really do
> need to know whether the car you drive uses leaded or unleaded.

    Actually, you need to know whether your car can burn 85 gas (at 
about 60 cents /gallon cheaper... and, whether 85 gas will have enough 
energy to move the car without using 35% more fuel... making it about 
$1.00 /gallon more expensive....  ehem.



:-}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6270

On Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:

> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
> wrote:
>>>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
>>>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
>>>> understanding recursion.
>>> 
>>> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point
>>> was not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to
>>> understand in order to use.
>>
>> Maybe they don't "need" to understand recursion. So what?
> 
> I think you should read the earlier posts again, this is drifting so far
> from what I intended.
> 
> What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than one
> person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
> recursively?' meant. BAut never have I been asked to explain what 'Do
> you wish to delete this directory and it's subdirs/with all it's
> contents?' meant. Never.

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?


> 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.


>> 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.


>> 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, and it's break pedal, not descellarator. (sp?)

That would be brake, and decelerator.


>> Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem
>> that they don't need to know?
> 
> 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.

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, 
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?

Conversation -- another one of those four syllable words that should be 
avoided, since we have "talk". I don't remember that last time I've heard 
Bazza or Jimbo say "I was on the Internet having a conversation on 
Jabber", do you?

Oh, actually I do. So much for that argument.


> 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



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6291

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
> ... For everyone else, I'll use an
> ordinary adult vocabulary, and that includes the word "recursion" or
> "recursive".

Overheard yesterday: "Our conversation was recursing..." I don't know
what they were talking about, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the
technical details of a function's implementation, given that one of
the people concerned was anything but a computer programmer (I don't
know about the other). It's a perfectly good word, useful in many
contexts.

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6306

* Steven D'Aprano (25 May 2011 22:58:21 GMT)
> 
> On Wed, 25 May 2011 00:06:06 +0200, Rikishi42 wrote:
> 
> > What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than 
one
> > person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
> > recursively?' meant. BAut never have I been asked to explain what 'Do
> > you wish to delete this directory and it's subdirs/with all it's
> > contents?' meant. Never.
> 
> 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?

It's not just a "new term". It tries to describe something which could 
be easily described in the terms of what is already known.

If someone has learned what a directory or folder is, you don't have to 
explain what "include sub-folders" means. Instead of creating a new 
mysterious term ("recursively delete"), you simply explain stuff by re-
using an already existing term. It's just that simple.

Thorsten

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6312

"Thorsten Kampe" <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> wrote in message 
news:MPG.284834d227e3acd1989813@news.individual.de...
>
> If someone has learned what a directory or folder is, you don't have to
> explain what "include sub-folders" means. Instead of creating a new
> mysterious term ("recursively delete"), you simply explain stuff by re-
> using an already existing term. It's just that simple.

I'm a native english speaker, and to me there is a difference between
"delete directory and sub-directories" (or folders and sub-folders if you
follow Microsoft's naming conventions) and "recursively delete". I know
english is very ambiguous, but to me "directory and sub-directories"
does not necessarily imply sub-directories of sub-directories and so
on, while "recursively delete" does carry the connotation of deleting the
sub-directories of sub-directories and sub-directories of sub-directories
of sub-directories and so on.


Charles

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6313

I just conducted a rapid poll of a non-technical userbase.

(Okay, I just asked my sister who happens to be sitting here. But
she's nontechnical.)

She explained "recursive" as "it repeats until it can't go any
further". I think that's a fair, if not perfectly accurate,
explanation.

Actually... if we accept that one iteration is deleting all files from
one depth level, then yes, the algorithm repeats that operation. And
I'm using "iteration" here without implying that it's an iterative
function.

Chris Angelico

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web