5 ms·

> 's like social sciences all over again (sorry social sciences, but it's what it is) where they invent terms so they'd be more "scientific". Why not simply use

> 's like social sciences all over again (sorry social sciences, but it's what it is) where they invent terms so they'd be more "scientific". Why not simply use the terms everybody understands? To be precise probably. Every domain develops a jargon at some point. It can be used to exclude or sound smart but most of the time it just to be precise. Common terms are too much vague / polysemic. Why do you need words like compiler, linker, dynamic and static types and linter instead of using common words?

necovek 5y ago
I am fine with jargon to suit a purpose. You'd have to explain "compiler" or "linker" with a mouthful, and you are unlikely to be very successful (unless you go to those mathematical models of computers). My (limited) experience with social sciences (as obligatory courses in Math/CS studies) was that you'd have things like "Someone's Continuum" (I am, thankfully, at a loss for the name of Someone :)) to say that two extremes of learning are rote learning and learning with understanding (this, by virtue of what "two extremes" mean in a natural language, means that there are things in between), all explained in 3-4 pages of dense prose that says, literally, nothing else. There is no precision gained from introduction of these terms for the most part, mostly the number of things to memorize is increased. To contradict that, a "continuum" in mathematics is given a very precise meaning to indicate that no matter how small your "in between", you can still find something there: you get very particular properties and can easily differentiate if something is a continuum or not. You also build up other tools to work on things which are "continuous", like derivatives, differentials or integrals. Some of the language of DDD is quite like it, which probably makes sense, since it's more closely related to social sciences (not rigorous science), rather than formal sciences. That's not to slight it, because that's the best we can do with some things, but that means that in any particular setting, you should understand what you are trying to get out of it, and if you are struggling with language, move on to the point of the exercise instead (eg. establishing domains, boundaries and shared language as it relates to your problem).

necovek 5y ago

I am fine with jargon to suit a purpose. You'd have to explain "compiler" or "linker" with a mouthful, and you are unlikely to be very successful (unless you go to those mathematical models of computers). My (limited) experience with social sciences (as obligatory courses in Math/CS studies) was that you'd have things like "Someone's Continuum" (I am, thankfully, at a loss for the name of Someone :)) to say that two extremes of learning are rote learning and learning with understanding (this, by virtue of what "two extremes" mean in a natural language, means that there are things in between), all explained in 3-4 pages of dense prose that says, literally, nothing else. There is no precision gained from introduction of these terms for the most part, mostly the number of things to memorize is increased. To contradict that, a "continuum" in mathematics is given a very precise meaning to indicate that no matter how small your "in between", you can still find something there: you get very particular properties and can easily differentiate if something is a continuum or not. You also build up other tools to work on things which are "continuous", like derivatives, differentials or integrals. Some of the language of DDD is quite like it, which probably makes sense, since it's more closely related to social sciences (not rigorous science), rather than formal sciences. That's not to slight it, because that's the best we can do with some things, but that means that in any particular setting, you should understand what you are trying to get out of it, and if you are struggling with language, move on to the point of the exercise instead (eg. establishing domains, boundaries and shared language as it relates to your problem).