3 ms·
Ah, that's helpful, thanks—we must have posted at roughly the same time. It's... eh. I don't love it, I don't hate it. On the other hand, I don't especially
by mcphage 5y ago
Ah, that's helpful, thanks—we must have posted at roughly the same time. It's... eh. I don't love it, I don't hate it. On the other hand, I don't especially like typing "internationalization" repeatedly, either :-) Once in a while is fine, but when you're trying to have a conversation about it, and have to type it over and over... it gets old.
- Jtsummers 5y agoIt should be treated like other abbreviations. If I want to comment on "JCL", it likely means nothing to the majority here (though more may catch on to my meaning with context). I should write "Job Control Language (JCL) ..." and then I can use the abbreviated form elsewhere in the comment and any ensuing discussion. If I'm writing within a context where JCL is well-known (like to people who are largely embedded in the IBM mainframe world), then I wouldn't need to spell it out. It's like any other jargon, you have to know who your audience is. You can use the jargon, but you have to clarify it or you're more likely to confuse or annoy people.
- mcphage 5y agoYeah, I agree. And I do think it's a benefit when you're having a conversation about one of those words, and so will be reading/writing it over and over. But as you point out, to casually use it once in a conversation would more likely be confusing or annoying, unless you know the people you're talking to are already aware of it.