|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Well, they say that great minds think alike, so it only follows that daft ones do, too.
I think a great mind is very alike a crazy one 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a thin line between genius and insanity, and everyone knows which side of the line I'm on.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The fun side 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I tried it - I am speaking from empirical evidence.
Even if computer guys (or rather: one computer guy) is very firm in his claim that there is not, nor has ever been, any other interpretation of a term than his, there still may be other interpretations out in the wild.
It is sort of like the first commandment - if there really was only one god, it would be redundant. Look around: There are lots of them. Similar with definitions of "metadata". "Thou shalt not have any other definitions than mine", yet there are lots of them.
|
|
|
|
|
No, that's nonsense; meta-data has a clear definition.
There are a lot of people using the word without knowing it, but that does not change the definition. How the word is used outside of IT is not relevant.
--edit
Metadata - Wikipedia[^]
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
More than that - it has many clear definitions. Unfortunately, they are not in agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, just one definition; and if you can't unambiguously explain what it is, you should not be allowed near data.
The idea that there are "multiple" definitions is utter nonsense; just like there is only ONE definition for a primary key (albeit it may be worded in different forms). We can communicate about stuff only if we mean the same things with the words we use - that is why we have so many dictionaries.
You can try and make up something new, but if it is not in the dictionary, no-one will be able to decipher it (and you become a manager!)
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Moses tried the same. I wouldn't say he succeeded. Whether you refer to that thick black book or to Wikipedia: People don't live by it (and for the Pentateuch, I'd say: Fortunately).
Consider what I write as an observation. If there was only a single understanding of it, it wouldn't be an eternal topic for arguments.
Re. "arguments":
A colleague of mine went on a week long meeting in an international standards comittee, for working out a new software standard. He came back rather frustrated: From Monday morning until Wednesday night,they had been fiercly fighting over one choice of word: Should it be termed arguments or parameters? Thursday morning they decided not to agree, leave the final decision for later, but use "arguments" for now, as a temporary solution, to get on with the work. But after lunch on Thursday, one guy brought up some arguments for "parameters" being a better temporary solution, and they spent the rest of Thursday and all Friday arguing which is te better temporary solution so they could get on with the work.
Those were people who had just as firm thoughts: By defintion, they are arguments! Noooo, the defintion clearly says that they are parameters!
As long as there is only one (monotheistic) religion, there is only one god. As long as there is only one definition, there is no argument. Neither assumption holds water.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: As long as there is only one (monotheistic) religion, there is only one god.
Religious people will never use scientific definitions and will always make up what they want the word to be.
In IT, we have a clear definition. You can make up other crap, but again, doesn't change a thing.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: Those were people who had just as firm thoughts: By defintion, they are arguments! Noooo, the defintion clearly says that they are parameters!
The thing in the signature is a parameter. If you assign a value to the parameter, that is the argument. You provide arguments to the parameter when invoking.
Instead of arguing, buy a dictionary.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think that comparing synonyms (or synonymous usage in this case) to the nature of definitions really has much meaning.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
- Hanlon's Razor
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: the author and title of a book: When included in an index or catalog, that is obviously metadata
I wouldn't have said so.
IMO, the author and title are attributes of the book, and therefore data.
The description used by the indexing process, describing what a book title is, now that is meta-data.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Some say this, some say that... When discussing with librarians, I usually argue that metadata is "data about data": The catalog entry tells about a given book, it isn't the book. While the title page is (part of) the book. "Metadata" is a function, the way we use information: When you use the title and author in the catalog to learn something about the existence of a book, you use it as metadata. When you read the same words on the title page, they are plain data.
Few librarians have really thought through the exact definition; they haven't had the need for it, as long as metadata in the form of indexes and catalogs is available. When they start thinking, they usually split into two groups (or more!) with different opinions, and I can quietly pull back while they continue the fighting.
I am certainly not absolute about what I suggest to the librarians. Anyone is free to scream out to me: "YOU are wrong!" I hear that from people with so strongly differing ideas about the right answer that I remain calm and relaxed.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, a quick rule of thumb: If you can assign a value to it (like a book title), it ain't meta-data.
Meta-data just tells you what it is -- wild e.g. "The title is the name used to identify the book".
You can't assign values to it, because it is what it is*.
* I always wanted to use that phrase in a way that made real sense.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Used to work somewhere the boss said "ASP dot C sharp". Learning to stifle my laughter was just easier than trying to correct him.
|
|
|
|
|
Ask them how Java and JavaScript are related
|
|
|
|
|
Heard a professor in IT once claim that you could very easily convert C# to JavaScript, since both were object-languages
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, he wasn't far wrong.
I mean C# is an object language, and javascript is an objectionable one.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The same mother(f---)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
People are so picky!
Validate obviously means the same as verify because they both start with a "V".
Before you know it, we'll have some pedantic techie claiming that Javascript isn't the same thing as Java ...
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
It is certainly not just the management - we are not very good at it ourselves. There are several cases where abuse of terms has become so widespread that the definition of the terms has changed.
Take "broadband": Nowadays, it is commonly used for a "high bandwidth" network. Go 40 years back, and there was "baseband" vs. "broadband", broadband being an FDM network. My university campus ran all commnication over a 60 channel Sytek broadband network, each channel something similar to an IP subnet. For its day, it had an enormous capacity; if my memory is correct, the cable carried 20 Mbps * 60 = 1,2 Gbps.
Take "internet": In my student days, an internet connected a heterogeenous collection of networks, with different addressing schemes, network protocols etc. Read RFC 791: IMPs are gateways between a local network and other networks. The RFC states explicitly that the local network has its own, arbitrary addressing and protocol; the IMP maps this to the IP used between networks. Nowadays, The Internet is one very definitite network protocol and adressing scheme, running not between networks, not even between nodes, but between processes!
Do any of you raise your eyebrow when shown a computing center machine room with a hundred PCs? Huh? Personal computers?
Do you laught when someone refers to a "core dump"? Have you ever touched a real core? (I have got a couple of frames; young computerists are really fascinated when they see it!)
There are the slang term, such as "ping" being a quality of a connection. "What's the ping to the London office?"
I could go on for quite a while with similar examples, where we are twisting the language around, frequently in ways that are laughable to those who know the true meaning of the words. Until the true meaning of the word is changed to the previously erroneous meaning of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Back in the 80's I worked for a defense contractor. My boss was a wonderful woman who handled customers really well, and stayed out of the tech folks' way. It wasn't until after you got to know her that you realized she didn't have the faintest clue what she was talking about if the conversation went the least bit technical.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I take extra care to ensure, stakeholders of this type are never left to feel uncomfortable on the conversation. Many times, I had taken a pause to tell them - ("I could explain you how this works, after the call"). Just to free the person and the other parties from an ambiguous situation, during the call.
Full Reset
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the video doesn't show a moonwalking duck, I'm not opening it! 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-
Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
