3 ms·
I think the m/s terminology is not technically correct. The actual behavior of a "slave" would better be described as a "follower" or a "replica". In an IRL ma
by schneems 9y ago
I think the m/s terminology is not technically correct.
The actual behavior of a "slave" would better be described as a "follower" or a "replica". In an IRL master/slave dynamic the master does not first do the work only to be copied by a slave. The slave does all the work while the master whips them.
It's better to choose a more technically correct metaphor/terminology.
- ApolloFortyNine 9y agoYou chose the wrong definition of slave to make your argument... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) In the computing world, this is what master/slave means. And has for 40 years. It doesn't matter what the words can also mean, just like it doesn't matter that the word whip can mean a kind of desert, or to stir. You need a dictionary.
- schneems 9y ago"Slave" has a meaning in the non-computing world as well and the two concepts diverge. Which is my point. Why is the term "variable" good, it's because it can change, it's variable it describes the concept well. When programming specialty lingo does not diverge from non specialty lingo it makes the concepts easier to reason about and work grok. The old term is confusing to newcomers, and changing it to something else would not break the brains of any tech oldtimers.