3 ms·

terms like "quick sort" and "map" are actively harmful because what they mean is VERY ambiguous, and in some cases becomes wrong over time. "quick sort" is no l

terms like "quick sort" and "map" are actively harmful because what they mean is VERY ambiguous, and in some cases becomes wrong over time. "quick sort" is no longer the quickest sort algorithm by any standard, it happens to just be quicker than some of the algorithms that came before it. "map" tells you nothing about the properties of the data structure other than that it 'maps' keys to values, but even the nuances of that could vary (can you have duplicate keys? duplicate values? do the keys have to be non-null?) "Boolean" and "conditional" are semantically very different, the difference is significant. The "there can be more than one" is specifically why it's important to call the algorithm Dijkstra. It's possible to look it up in Google or in a textbook and immediately find the algorithm in question. Generic terms don't have that property. Calling this narcissism does everyone a significant disservice.

mattkrause 6y ago
> Calling this narcissism does everyone a significant disservice. It’s not even really narcissism. Here’s the original paper describing what is now called Dijkstra’s Algorithm: http://www-m3.ma.tum.de/foswiki/pub/MN0506/WebHome/dijkstra.pdf http://www-m3.ma.tum.de/foswiki/pub/MN0506/WebHome/dijkstra.... Note that the algorithm isn’t called that anywhere in the paper. In fact, it’s not even named. When other people want to discuss that work, they need to call it something, and some natural solutions are “an algorithm proposed by Dijkstra” and, subsequently, “Dijkstra’s Algorithm”, as you can see in this contemporary paper. https://www.ams.org/journals/qam/1970-27-04/S0033-569X-1970-0253822-7/S0033-569X-1970-0253822-7.pdf https://www.ams.org/journals/qam/1970-27-04/S0033-569X-1970-...) As that second paper shows, you can’t really call it “the Shortest Path Algorithm” because others were developing other approaches for similar problems. “Shortest Path, Assuming All Edge Weights are Non-Negative and You Can Afford to Search Blindly Without a Heuristic, Algorithm” doesn’t really roll off the tongue either.
- rrobukef 6y ago
  It is also introduced as Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm if the text is expected to be read outside the domain such as in textbooks.
  - mattkrause 6y ago
    Sure, but a) It'd need to be called that by Dijkstra himself to be even arguably narcissistic and b) The qualifier "Dijsktra's" is important because there are other algorithms for finding a shortest path (Bellman-Ford, Floyd-Warshall, A*), with different trade-offs (Bellman-Ford is slower, but can handle negative weights; Floyd-Warshall gets you all pairs and may be better when the graph is dense). Accordingly, I think the grandparent's suggestion of purely descriptive names isn't feasible.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  This is true, concepts aren’t usually named by the person inventing them. But it’s mind boggling that someone could consider it unfair to give the giants that created mathematics and laid the groundwork for physics and modern technology their due.
DonHopkins 6y ago
I'd call my sorting technique "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Sort" so it gets listed first in the algorithm directory.
- Phrenzy 6y ago
  !my sort is better.... sort.
  - DonHopkins 6y ago
    !AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMS RACE SORT

mattkrause 6y ago

> Calling this narcissism does everyone a significant disservice. It’s not even really narcissism. Here’s the original paper describing what is now called Dijkstra’s Algorithm: http://www-m3.ma.tum.de/foswiki/pub/MN0506/WebHome/dijkstra.pdf http://www-m3.ma.tum.de/foswiki/pub/MN0506/WebHome/dijkstra.... Note that the algorithm isn’t called that anywhere in the paper. In fact, it’s not even named. When other people want to discuss that work, they need to call it something, and some natural solutions are “an algorithm proposed by Dijkstra” and, subsequently, “Dijkstra’s Algorithm”, as you can see in this contemporary paper. https://www.ams.org/journals/qam/1970-27-04/S0033-569X-1970-0253822-7/S0033-569X-1970-0253822-7.pdf https://www.ams.org/journals/qam/1970-27-04/S0033-569X-1970-...) As that second paper shows, you can’t really call it “the Shortest Path Algorithm” because others were developing other approaches for similar problems. “Shortest Path, Assuming All Edge Weights are Non-Negative and You Can Afford to Search Blindly Without a Heuristic, Algorithm” doesn’t really roll off the tongue either.

rrobukef 6y ago
It is also introduced as Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm if the text is expected to be read outside the domain such as in textbooks.
- mattkrause 6y ago
  Sure, but a) It'd need to be called that by Dijkstra himself to be even arguably narcissistic and b) The qualifier "Dijsktra's" is important because there are other algorithms for finding a shortest path (Bellman-Ford, Floyd-Warshall, A*), with different trade-offs (Bellman-Ford is slower, but can handle negative weights; Floyd-Warshall gets you all pairs and may be better when the graph is dense). Accordingly, I think the grandparent's suggestion of purely descriptive names isn't feasible.
Grustaf 6y ago
This is true, concepts aren’t usually named by the person inventing them. But it’s mind boggling that someone could consider it unfair to give the giants that created mathematics and laid the groundwork for physics and modern technology their due.

DonHopkins 6y ago

I'd call my sorting technique "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Sort" so it gets listed first in the algorithm directory.

Phrenzy 6y ago
!my sort is better.... sort.
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  !AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMS RACE SORT