7 ms·

I agree that the terminology doesn't matter, but consensus does. Master/slave are the commonly understood terms. Here's a question: if "slave" is offensive,

I agree that the terminology doesn't matter, but consensus does. Master/slave are the commonly understood terms. Here's a question: if "slave" is offensive, should "kill" (as in 'kill 69' to kill a process in SQL Server) be considered offensive as well? Simply as a consequence of being something 'bad/immoral'? I'm sorry, and I'd be glad to be corrected, but I genuinely find this argument...disingenuous. And people who see things the same way I do see that kind of argument and think that you've got other motives. EDIT: I want to say (to prevent this discussion from flying off into Trump-land) that I'm liberal on most issues except gun control. I just have a hard time relating to the 'micro-aggression-y' brand of liberalism I've been seeing of late.

schneems 9y ago
Master/slave was also a commonly accepted role of business for far longer than it has been a computer term. We managed to change that in the west. I believe in us, we can do it. > I genuinely find this argument...disingenuous My argument is that the term is not technically correct. How is that disingenuous?
- Mouse47 9y ago
  I'm arguing specifically against the term being offensive. EDIT: and oddly, I can't seem to find the word anywhere in your comment that I replied to. Am I losing my mind, or did you take that part out?
  - schneems 9y ago
    I had it in there to emphasize how un-technically incorrect it is. Apparently people saw the word "offensive" and they didn't read the rest, so I took it out to add clarity. I forgot that HN doesn't provide a diff of edits, so went back and added a note in the comment that it was edited. Edit: Edited this note to mention I updated the previous note with an edit note.
    - Mouse47 9y ago
      I'm fine with an argument based solely on its technical merits. But then you're going to lose out to things like backwards compatibility and the sheer force of momentum - everyone understands these terms. There are probably hundreds of ill-fitting terms in the tech world that now mean what we mean them to mean (lol). This one receives blowback not because it's technically unsound (which it might be), but because some paint it 'offensive'. That's why everyone seized on this part of your (now edited) argument. EDIT: thanks for being honest btw
      - schneems 9y ago
        For most projects it seems like a pretty easy change. You could add new keywords, alias the old methods/commands to them. You don't even have to deprecate them, just make the docs point to the newer terminology. What is easier having to have this conversation EVERY time the term gets used for the rest of eternity, or making the change once and being done with it?
        Mouse47 9y ago
        >What is easier having to have this conversation EVERY time the term gets used for the rest of eternity, or making the change once and being done with it? That's not very compelling. Just because certain people make a lot of noise doesn't mean we have to do what they want us to do. >For most projects it seems like a pretty easy change. You could add new keywords, alias the old methods/commands to them. You don't even have to deprecate them, just make the docs point to the newer terminology. ...for every project that uses these terms across the entire industry. You know what's easier? Not making the change. There are two arguments: 1. The technical gain by changing these terms outweighs the drawbacks (legacy code, consensus/convention, etc.). I doubt there's much to gain here. 2. The technical aspect doesn't matter since it's offensive. I've already addressed this.
        instantaphex 9y ago
        Thank you. This argument is absurd. I'm fucking tired of social justice warriors trying to take over everything with their God damn oppression Olympics.

schneems 9y ago

Master/slave was also a commonly accepted role of business for far longer than it has been a computer term. We managed to change that in the west. I believe in us, we can do it. > I genuinely find this argument...disingenuous My argument is that the term is not technically correct. How is that disingenuous?

Mouse47 9y ago
I'm arguing specifically against the term being offensive. EDIT: and oddly, I can't seem to find the word anywhere in your comment that I replied to. Am I losing my mind, or did you take that part out?
- schneems 9y ago
  I had it in there to emphasize how un-technically incorrect it is. Apparently people saw the word "offensive" and they didn't read the rest, so I took it out to add clarity. I forgot that HN doesn't provide a diff of edits, so went back and added a note in the comment that it was edited. Edit: Edited this note to mention I updated the previous note with an edit note.
  - Mouse47 9y ago
    I'm fine with an argument based solely on its technical merits. But then you're going to lose out to things like backwards compatibility and the sheer force of momentum - everyone understands these terms. There are probably hundreds of ill-fitting terms in the tech world that now mean what we mean them to mean (lol). This one receives blowback not because it's technically unsound (which it might be), but because some paint it 'offensive'. That's why everyone seized on this part of your (now edited) argument. EDIT: thanks for being honest btw
    - schneems 9y ago
      For most projects it seems like a pretty easy change. You could add new keywords, alias the old methods/commands to them. You don't even have to deprecate them, just make the docs point to the newer terminology. What is easier having to have this conversation EVERY time the term gets used for the rest of eternity, or making the change once and being done with it?
      - Mouse47 9y ago
        >What is easier having to have this conversation EVERY time the term gets used for the rest of eternity, or making the change once and being done with it? That's not very compelling. Just because certain people make a lot of noise doesn't mean we have to do what they want us to do. >For most projects it seems like a pretty easy change. You could add new keywords, alias the old methods/commands to them. You don't even have to deprecate them, just make the docs point to the newer terminology. ...for every project that uses these terms across the entire industry. You know what's easier? Not making the change. There are two arguments: 1. The technical gain by changing these terms outweighs the drawbacks (legacy code, consensus/convention, etc.). I doubt there's much to gain here. 2. The technical aspect doesn't matter since it's offensive. I've already addressed this.
        instantaphex 9y ago
        Thank you. This argument is absurd. I'm fucking tired of social justice warriors trying to take over everything with their God damn oppression Olympics.