4 ms·
I'm so glad this is happening. I've tried to occasionally propose we use a theorem-prover at work for stuff that "isn't allowed to make mistakes", and I'm alwa
by tombert 6y ago
I'm so glad this is happening. I've tried to occasionally propose we use a theorem-prover at work for stuff that "isn't allowed to make mistakes", and I'm always hesitant to recommend Coq because the name will, at best, get some chuckling and jokes, and worst make people feel a bit uncomfortable.
- forgotpwd16 6y agoYou could always pronounce it as /see-oh-kju/.
- tombert 6y agoSure, I could do that, but a lot of the lectures online pronounce it like "cock", at least when the lecture is from an American or a British person. It it immature to worry about that? Sure, people probably should grow up at some level, but the fact is that I don't really have a magic wand to automatically change the maturity level of every engineer I might ever work with, and those engineers can as a result use it to make people feel unwelcome in tech.
- afiori 6y ago> a lot of the lectures online pronounce it like "cock" Wow, I discover now that it is supposed to be pronounced more like coke
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoAt that point, we’re already changing the name, so why not go all the way?
- forgotpwd16 6y agoNot really. Basically not at all. In bibliography I bet few, if any, times Coq's pronunciation is mentioned. The only thing changing will be in presentations and conversations where the name is a problem.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y agoThe vast majority of my communication is verbal, and that includes technical communication. "Only" isn't really "only."
- forgotpwd16 6y agoNot sure what's the problem then as, based on that, changing just the pronunciation should be fine.
- dgellow 6y agoWhat about saying "coqlang", similar to golang for Go? Does that still sound offensive? I'm wondering if there would be a way to avoid the issue without a renaming.