4 ms·

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 lo

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
        I'm a technical justice warrior thank you very much. I don't appreciate your tone, you snowflake.
        Mouse47 9y ago
        That guy was an asshole btw
      - schneems 9y ago
        It depends on how expensive your deprecation process is. I don't think we can generalize for entire ecosystems. Some langs and products it would be fairly trivial to update, and retain back wards compat. Others might be harder and stay constant for longer. Antirez said if he started a new project it would be named something different. I can only assume some other future databases will will take this approach. Maybe Antirez will write one of them. When that happens now we have a new problem: divergence in the ecosystem. My preference would be for a big project to adopt a separate term, "secondary", "follower", "replica", whatever. So that when other new DBs look for an "alternative term" there is somewhat of a standard. Really though, that's not even that bad of a problem, because when i say all those terms, "secondary" etc. it's pretty obvious in the context of a DB what i'm talking about. Do you have to do something __just__ because people are making your life hard? No. Do you have to make a change just because something is technically incorrect? No. Do you have to make a change because something is offensive to a large group of people? Still no. Maybe a better question to ask is, at what point would the tables be turned? What would push you over the edge to say it should be changed?

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
        I'm a technical justice warrior thank you very much. I don't appreciate your tone, you snowflake.
        Mouse47 9y ago
        That guy was an asshole btw
    - schneems 9y ago
      It depends on how expensive your deprecation process is. I don't think we can generalize for entire ecosystems. Some langs and products it would be fairly trivial to update, and retain back wards compat. Others might be harder and stay constant for longer. Antirez said if he started a new project it would be named something different. I can only assume some other future databases will will take this approach. Maybe Antirez will write one of them. When that happens now we have a new problem: divergence in the ecosystem. My preference would be for a big project to adopt a separate term, "secondary", "follower", "replica", whatever. So that when other new DBs look for an "alternative term" there is somewhat of a standard. Really though, that's not even that bad of a problem, because when i say all those terms, "secondary" etc. it's pretty obvious in the context of a DB what i'm talking about. Do you have to do something __just__ because people are making your life hard? No. Do you have to make a change just because something is technically incorrect? No. Do you have to make a change because something is offensive to a large group of people? Still no. Maybe a better question to ask is, at what point would the tables be turned? What would push you over the edge to say it should be changed?