7 ms·

Render is the term used by many templating languages to denote transforming a template to a result using parameters. So in the case of web apps that use templat

by orisho 6y ago

Render is the term used by many templating languages to denote transforming a template to a result using parameters. So in the case of web apps that use templates, it's the terminology commonly used (you could argue about its correctness, but it is this word). For example, the jinja2 library names the transform function 'render'.

qubex 6y ago
> you could argue about its correctness Yes, I do. But as you say, it’s in circulation. I guess I dislike it in the same way that I consider ‘literally’ and ‘figuratively’ to be antonyms, but how the former has unfortunately come to be considered a synonym of the latter, which basically hobbles the language permanently.
- orisho 6y ago
  Yes, that one is definitely very unfortunate :(
  - qubex 6y ago
    I literally hate it. ;)
- simiones 6y ago
  Who considers "literally" to be a synonym for "figuratively"? I would venture that almost no one. In fact, it is used exactly for its proper meaning, as a hyperbole. If I say "I feel so embarrassed I could literally die", I am using literally in its proper sense, but hyperbolically. Just like if I say someone was "a mountain of a man" I am using the proper sense of "mountain", even though the man is not literally a mountain.
  - gwd 6y ago
    > If I say "I feel so embarrassed I could literally die", I am using literally in its proper sense, but hyperbolically. I'd rather say they were using "literally" as a meaningless intensifier. But here's the thing: We already have loads of intensifiers. But we don't have very many ways of saying, "I'm not speaking hyperbolically, this actually happened." Think of all the words that, etymologically speaking, should mean "this actually happened", but in fact don't mean anything anymore: really, truly, definitely, and so on. The reason they didn't say "I feel so embarrassed, I really could die" is that "really" has lost its strength from overuse; now they've moved on and are trying to do the same thing to "literally". "Literally" is my (figurative) line in the sand: This far and no farther. Language is defined by its speakers: I'm an English speaker, and so I get to vote on how the language is used. As such, I will continue to make fun of people who say "I could literally die" as long as it is possible, and I encourage everyone to do the same.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      I question whether "I could literally die" is precisely the same thing as "I literally could die". That is, maybe the former means "I could (figuratively) literally die", while the latter means "I literally (not figuratively) could die".
      - gwd 6y ago
        "I could literally die if I eat shrimp." "I could literally die of this disease." Those sound like "this actually happened" to me. "I can't believe I did that in front of all those people -- I literally could die of embarrassment." "I can't believe I did that in front of all those people -- I could literally die of embarrassment". Those both sound like normal "meaningless emphasis" usages of the word 'literally'.
      - qubex 6y ago
        I think we’re getting a bit distracted here by the fact that the frequently used “I literally died [of embarrassment]” is obviously figurative because nobody would be able to use the verb “to die” in the first person in the past tense. When you get to thinks like “She literally died” it becomes murkier. “I could literally die if I ate shrimp” is murkier still. This is one of the many reasons I’d like a firm firewall between ‘figuratively’ and ‘literally’. It seems I’m constantly besieged by the “language evolves, deal with it” crowd, but what they don’t get is that it’s all fine and well when language evolves in such a way to become more precise (perhaps by adding terms that distinguish between things that were previously lumped together, such as ‘dumbphone’ and ‘smartphone’ splitting from ‘cellphone’, itself a portmanteau of ‘cellular’ and ‘telephone’, to distinguish it from a fixed line) or to make meanings quicker to convey in conversation (by abridging the latter to ‘convo’, for example), but the ‘figurative’ versus ‘literal’ debate is very different, because it’s one of those relatively few instances that add ambiguity, making meanings (at least potentially) harder to convey.
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      The figurative meaning is now considered one of the major senses of the word "literally" because it's so widely used - see https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/literally https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis... sense #3, the same for other major dictionaries now.
- theelous3 6y ago
  It really doesn't "hobble" language. In all the time since the muddying of the word literally, I've yet to come across a use of it that can't be inferred contextually. The end result is that now there's even more flavor to language, not that it's hobbled. People complaining about literally being watered down, literally need to chill. Go read a non-technical book or something and re/learn that language is absolutely unstrict. You can do whatever the hell you want with it and use words in ridiculous ways, and it's all valid. The only thing that matters is communication. If you understand that "I literally died when I saw it come off" and "he literally couldn't fit through the doorway for 20 minutes" have different uses of literally, what's the issue? You want every word to be a reserved keyword?
  - qubex 6y ago
    > I’ve yet to come across a use [...] that can’t be inferred contextually I literally think that’s impossible.
    - theelous3 6y ago
      So what's hobbled?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  I take the completely opposite stance: things like the dual usage of "literally" are less symptoms of a hobbled language and more symptoms of hobbled language skills in those that complain about them. And I mean that literally; rigid educational systems have stamped the fluidity of language out of far too many people.
  - qubex 6y ago
    Then you’re entirely willing to concede that “Quack quack quack, quack quack, quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.” is entirely intelligible because you can easily ascribe multiple meanings to various instances of ‘quack’ so that it makes sense? The point being that there’s definitely a threshold beyond which ambiguity of meaning makes parsing a sentence and resolving its meaning impossible. The more specific (and distinguishable) terms are, the less risk there is of a misunderstanding. This is Information Theory 101.

by orisho 6y ago

qubex 6y ago

> you could argue about its correctness Yes, I do. But as you say, it’s in circulation. I guess I dislike it in the same way that I consider ‘literally’ and ‘figuratively’ to be antonyms, but how the former has unfortunately come to be considered a synonym of the latter, which basically hobbles the language permanently.

orisho 6y ago
Yes, that one is definitely very unfortunate :(
- qubex 6y ago
  I literally hate it. ;)
simiones 6y ago
Who considers "literally" to be a synonym for "figuratively"? I would venture that almost no one. In fact, it is used exactly for its proper meaning, as a hyperbole. If I say "I feel so embarrassed I could literally die", I am using literally in its proper sense, but hyperbolically. Just like if I say someone was "a mountain of a man" I am using the proper sense of "mountain", even though the man is not literally a mountain.
- gwd 6y ago
  > If I say "I feel so embarrassed I could literally die", I am using literally in its proper sense, but hyperbolically. I'd rather say they were using "literally" as a meaningless intensifier. But here's the thing: We already have loads of intensifiers. But we don't have very many ways of saying, "I'm not speaking hyperbolically, this actually happened." Think of all the words that, etymologically speaking, should mean "this actually happened", but in fact don't mean anything anymore: really, truly, definitely, and so on. The reason they didn't say "I feel so embarrassed, I really could die" is that "really" has lost its strength from overuse; now they've moved on and are trying to do the same thing to "literally". "Literally" is my (figurative) line in the sand: This far and no farther. Language is defined by its speakers: I'm an English speaker, and so I get to vote on how the language is used. As such, I will continue to make fun of people who say "I could literally die" as long as it is possible, and I encourage everyone to do the same.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I question whether "I could literally die" is precisely the same thing as "I literally could die". That is, maybe the former means "I could (figuratively) literally die", while the latter means "I literally (not figuratively) could die".
    - gwd 6y ago
      "I could literally die if I eat shrimp." "I could literally die of this disease." Those sound like "this actually happened" to me. "I can't believe I did that in front of all those people -- I literally could die of embarrassment." "I can't believe I did that in front of all those people -- I could literally die of embarrassment". Those both sound like normal "meaningless emphasis" usages of the word 'literally'.
    - qubex 6y ago
      I think we’re getting a bit distracted here by the fact that the frequently used “I literally died [of embarrassment]” is obviously figurative because nobody would be able to use the verb “to die” in the first person in the past tense. When you get to thinks like “She literally died” it becomes murkier. “I could literally die if I ate shrimp” is murkier still. This is one of the many reasons I’d like a firm firewall between ‘figuratively’ and ‘literally’. It seems I’m constantly besieged by the “language evolves, deal with it” crowd, but what they don’t get is that it’s all fine and well when language evolves in such a way to become more precise (perhaps by adding terms that distinguish between things that were previously lumped together, such as ‘dumbphone’ and ‘smartphone’ splitting from ‘cellphone’, itself a portmanteau of ‘cellular’ and ‘telephone’, to distinguish it from a fixed line) or to make meanings quicker to convey in conversation (by abridging the latter to ‘convo’, for example), but the ‘figurative’ versus ‘literal’ debate is very different, because it’s one of those relatively few instances that add ambiguity, making meanings (at least potentially) harder to convey.
  - PeterisP 6y ago
    The figurative meaning is now considered one of the major senses of the word "literally" because it's so widely used - see https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/literally https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis... sense #3, the same for other major dictionaries now.
theelous3 6y ago
It really doesn't "hobble" language. In all the time since the muddying of the word literally, I've yet to come across a use of it that can't be inferred contextually. The end result is that now there's even more flavor to language, not that it's hobbled. People complaining about literally being watered down, literally need to chill. Go read a non-technical book or something and re/learn that language is absolutely unstrict. You can do whatever the hell you want with it and use words in ridiculous ways, and it's all valid. The only thing that matters is communication. If you understand that "I literally died when I saw it come off" and "he literally couldn't fit through the doorway for 20 minutes" have different uses of literally, what's the issue? You want every word to be a reserved keyword?
- qubex 6y ago
  > I’ve yet to come across a use [...] that can’t be inferred contextually I literally think that’s impossible.
  - theelous3 6y ago
    So what's hobbled?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
filleduchaos 6y ago
I take the completely opposite stance: things like the dual usage of "literally" are less symptoms of a hobbled language and more symptoms of hobbled language skills in those that complain about them. And I mean that literally; rigid educational systems have stamped the fluidity of language out of far too many people.
- qubex 6y ago
  Then you’re entirely willing to concede that “Quack quack quack, quack quack, quack quack. Quack quack quack quack.” is entirely intelligible because you can easily ascribe multiple meanings to various instances of ‘quack’ so that it makes sense? The point being that there’s definitely a threshold beyond which ambiguity of meaning makes parsing a sentence and resolving its meaning impossible. The more specific (and distinguishable) terms are, the less risk there is of a misunderstanding. This is Information Theory 101.