3 ms·

To be fair, it's because OJFord is using really weird nomenclature. Example from their other reply: > Message: Explanation for code, why it's correct fix, bac

To be fair, it's because OJFord is using really weird nomenclature. Example from their other reply: > Message: Explanation for code, why it's correct fix, background etc. ('how' I suppose) Uh, what? It doesn't make any sense to (correctly) refer to this as "why" at first and then conclude that it must be "how"? Just stick with "why".

OJFord 5y ago
Sure, it's a continuation of 'why', I called the subject that headed it 'why' after all. But a lengthier explanation of 'why' that describes 'how' the contained code applies to the problem I think can be called 'how'. I really don't think what we call them matters much if we agree on what they should contain.
- pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
  Look at the amount of confusion that idiosyncratic terminology led to among the people here in this discussion alone. Of course it matters. To repeat, first referring to the commit message body as why but then concluding you should call it how (because it can't be "why" since you've already decided that the summary is your "why" (which can't be "what" because you want the code to be your "what"))... is the kind of internal inconsistency that should be all the evidence you need to abandon this campaign to insist on using this terminology. And speaking of inconsistency and insistence: if you truly think it doesn't matter, then there's no reason to insist on defending it. The only reason to do so would be if you didn't actually believe that it doesn't matter, and you just said it didn't because it seemed like a convenient way to argue that the weirder nomenclature is acceptable. But again, if it truly doesn't matter, then you'd have no problem letting go of that, right?
  - OJFord 5y ago
    > Of course it matters. > you need to abandon this campaign to insist on using this terminology. Sorry, who's insisting on it? I just said it doesn't matter what we call it, what terminology we use, just what we mean (and practise). > argue that the weirder nomenclature is acceptable I have no idea what you're talking about, taken as words alone they're ambiguous, yes, and can be used in different phrasings that make the single words apply to different things; as I demonstrated.

OJFord 5y ago

Sure, it's a continuation of 'why', I called the subject that headed it 'why' after all. But a lengthier explanation of 'why' that describes 'how' the contained code applies to the problem I think can be called 'how'. I really don't think what we call them matters much if we agree on what they should contain.

pwdisswordfish0 5y ago
Look at the amount of confusion that idiosyncratic terminology led to among the people here in this discussion alone. Of course it matters. To repeat, first referring to the commit message body as why but then concluding you should call it how (because it can't be "why" since you've already decided that the summary is your "why" (which can't be "what" because you want the code to be your "what"))... is the kind of internal inconsistency that should be all the evidence you need to abandon this campaign to insist on using this terminology. And speaking of inconsistency and insistence: if you truly think it doesn't matter, then there's no reason to insist on defending it. The only reason to do so would be if you didn't actually believe that it doesn't matter, and you just said it didn't because it seemed like a convenient way to argue that the weirder nomenclature is acceptable. But again, if it truly doesn't matter, then you'd have no problem letting go of that, right?
- OJFord 5y ago
  > Of course it matters. > you need to abandon this campaign to insist on using this terminology. Sorry, who's insisting on it? I just said it doesn't matter what we call it, what terminology we use, just what we mean (and practise). > argue that the weirder nomenclature is acceptable I have no idea what you're talking about, taken as words alone they're ambiguous, yes, and can be used in different phrasings that make the single words apply to different things; as I demonstrated.