4 ms·

whats a better term here?

tyingq 9y ago
Contextual functions maybe? For orthagonal, it's often used to mean "unrelated". Immutable could be "fixed", "constant" or any number of other more pedestrian terms.
- kccqzy 9y ago
  You're just inventing your own terms no one else uses. There's a page called "Monad (functional programming)" on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(functional_programming) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(functional_programming) suggesting that the term "moand" or "moandic" is widely used and understood. There's no page called "contextual function." There's a page called "Orthogonality (programming)" on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_(programming) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_(programming) also suggesting that the term "orthogonal" is widely used and understood. The page for "Unrelated" is about a movie. There's a page called "Immutable Object" on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object suggesting that the term "immutable" is widely used and understood. "Fixed" and "constant" have distinctly different meanings from "immutable."
  - tyingq 9y ago
    I do respect your viewpoint. But immutable and orthagonal are just weird jargon to my project managers, product managers, analysts, customers, etc. For me, it's somewhat equivalent to odd terminology that probably irritates you from the business like "synergy" or "paradigm", or "incentivise" From the tech side, we parody those terms. Rest assured, business folks parody us for our monads, immutables, etc. It makes us seem like we're trying to feel self important. Wikipedia isn't really convincing to me. There's no page for contextual functions because it's not really new, exciting, unique, or notable. I feel the same if you call that "monads". I can implement them in decades old programming languages. Same for immutable. Existed long before anyone called it that. We used it without having to have some catchy moniker that nobody understood outside the family. Basically, I want to stop alienating project managers, product managers, and customers with weird jargon.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      > Basically, I want to stop alienating project managers, product managers, and customers with weird jargon. The things you might need jargon for are things that they shouldn't have to concern themselves with. If you use more familiar words but arrange them in unfamiliar ways, you'll cause the same confusion as by using jargon, except someone might believe they understood when they really didn't. If you feel like you need to refer to programming concepts when talking to non-technical people, you're doing it wrong. Instead of talking about "immutable"/"constant"/"fixed", say that you made changes to prevent data from being altered accidentally. That's something they care about, not how exactly you did it.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        >The things you might need jargon for are things that they shouldn't have to concern themselves with. Sure, but they become terms in titles of change requests, features, bug fixes, etc. It leaks out whether I want it to or not. And customers ask "what does this mean?" Or sometimes, forgivable but less polite equivalents.
- erydo 9y ago
  Just use the word that means the thing that you're talking about, as clearly as you can. What "clear" means depends on the context and audience. It sounds like you probably already know this, but "fixed" and "constant" usually refer to concepts very distinct from "immutable". And "contextual function" would confuse everyone. (A monad isn't a function, and certainly not one influenced by some outer context). Similarly, "orthogonal" and "unrelated" aren't synonyms. (X and Y axes are orthogonal, but they're often related. That's why we plot things). In every field, there will be people who over-use technical terms for status signaling. But those terms usually exist for a reason beyond that, and avoiding them as a sort of counter-signaling doesn't help anyone. It's just playing the other side of that game. Usually the common term means the same things as a lot of things…that's both why they're common, and why they're less useful in a technical context. Some other examples that come to mind are "electricity" (current, voltage, power…?); "size" (area, volume, mass…?). Just because an engineer or physicist might talk about volume doesn't mean you have to be a physicist to talk about it too. It also doesn't mean that, not being a physicist, the familiar word "size" means the same thing they're talking about.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    That's fair, but these terms are leaking out to business analysts, project managers, product managers, and customers. They have no idea what we're talking about. My weak attempts at synonyms might be attackable, buy we're coming across as elite bullshitters. I'd love something that was more consumable for the common person.

Contextual functions maybe? For orthagonal, it's often used to mean "unrelated". Immutable could be "fixed", "constant" or any number of other more pedestrian terms.

kccqzy 9y ago
You're just inventing your own terms no one else uses. There's a page called "Monad (functional programming)" on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(functional_programming) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monad_(functional_programming) suggesting that the term "moand" or "moandic" is widely used and understood. There's no page called "contextual function." There's a page called "Orthogonality (programming)" on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_(programming) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality_(programming) also suggesting that the term "orthogonal" is widely used and understood. The page for "Unrelated" is about a movie. There's a page called "Immutable Object" on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immutable_object suggesting that the term "immutable" is widely used and understood. "Fixed" and "constant" have distinctly different meanings from "immutable."
- tyingq 9y ago
  I do respect your viewpoint. But immutable and orthagonal are just weird jargon to my project managers, product managers, analysts, customers, etc. For me, it's somewhat equivalent to odd terminology that probably irritates you from the business like "synergy" or "paradigm", or "incentivise" From the tech side, we parody those terms. Rest assured, business folks parody us for our monads, immutables, etc. It makes us seem like we're trying to feel self important. Wikipedia isn't really convincing to me. There's no page for contextual functions because it's not really new, exciting, unique, or notable. I feel the same if you call that "monads". I can implement them in decades old programming languages. Same for immutable. Existed long before anyone called it that. We used it without having to have some catchy moniker that nobody understood outside the family. Basically, I want to stop alienating project managers, product managers, and customers with weird jargon.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    > Basically, I want to stop alienating project managers, product managers, and customers with weird jargon. The things you might need jargon for are things that they shouldn't have to concern themselves with. If you use more familiar words but arrange them in unfamiliar ways, you'll cause the same confusion as by using jargon, except someone might believe they understood when they really didn't. If you feel like you need to refer to programming concepts when talking to non-technical people, you're doing it wrong. Instead of talking about "immutable"/"constant"/"fixed", say that you made changes to prevent data from being altered accidentally. That's something they care about, not how exactly you did it.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      >The things you might need jargon for are things that they shouldn't have to concern themselves with. Sure, but they become terms in titles of change requests, features, bug fixes, etc. It leaks out whether I want it to or not. And customers ask "what does this mean?" Or sometimes, forgivable but less polite equivalents.
erydo 9y ago
Just use the word that means the thing that you're talking about, as clearly as you can. What "clear" means depends on the context and audience. It sounds like you probably already know this, but "fixed" and "constant" usually refer to concepts very distinct from "immutable". And "contextual function" would confuse everyone. (A monad isn't a function, and certainly not one influenced by some outer context). Similarly, "orthogonal" and "unrelated" aren't synonyms. (X and Y axes are orthogonal, but they're often related. That's why we plot things). In every field, there will be people who over-use technical terms for status signaling. But those terms usually exist for a reason beyond that, and avoiding them as a sort of counter-signaling doesn't help anyone. It's just playing the other side of that game. Usually the common term means the same things as a lot of things…that's both why they're common, and why they're less useful in a technical context. Some other examples that come to mind are "electricity" (current, voltage, power…?); "size" (area, volume, mass…?). Just because an engineer or physicist might talk about volume doesn't mean you have to be a physicist to talk about it too. It also doesn't mean that, not being a physicist, the familiar word "size" means the same thing they're talking about.
- tyingq 9y ago
  That's fair, but these terms are leaking out to business analysts, project managers, product managers, and customers. They have no idea what we're talking about. My weak attempts at synonyms might be attackable, buy we're coming across as elite bullshitters. I'd love something that was more consumable for the common person.