3 ms·

I know it is unpopular nowadays, but it really helps understanding between people if we stop redefining terms all the time. So, let's have a look at what a dict

I know it is unpopular nowadays, but it really helps understanding between people if we stop redefining terms all the time. So, let's have a look at what a dictionary definition (taken from [1]) of code is: 1. a systematic statement of a body of law 2. a system of principles or rules moral code 3. a. a system of signals or symbols for communication b. a system of symbols (such as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings c. coded language : a word or phrase chosen in place of another word or phrase in order to communicate an attitude or meaning without stating it explicitly 4. genetic code 5. instructions for a computer Relevant to the discussion here are points 3 and 5. I would argue json, yaml, and xml, would be called code under points 3 as well as 5. [1]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code

denton-scratch 5y ago
I don't regard Merriam-Webster as authoritative. They are hard-core descriptivists; if they can find an attestation for some usage, however contradictory or plain wrong, they will list it in their lexicon. E.g. "literally": "In a completely accurate way; a story that is basically true even if not literally true". "In effect, virtually; used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible" So according to M-W, "literally" means the same as "not literally". Merriam-Webster debauch the English language.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  > They are hard-core descriptivists; if they can find an attestation for some usage, however contradictory or plain wrong, they will list it in their lexicon. AKA their dictionary accurately reflects language usage; the opposite being prescriptivism, wherein you reflect the language as you wish it was rather than actual usage.
- funcDropShadow 5y ago
  Interesting points. Because English is not my mother-tongue, I wasn't aware of perceived quality of that dictionary. I chose Merriam-Webster simply because it was the first hit in my online search. Which English dictionary do you consider better? But, I still find it important to look at definitions that are actually used out there. Some scientific papers I've read just redefined everything to fit their purpose. There is a fine line between making it practically impossible to communicate ideas based on common understanding of terms, and allowing those terms to evolve. Anyway, I am convinced it is a bad idea to try to "feel" or "impulsively answer" the question is json or yaml code. To answer such a question every intelligent person should, IMHO, remember or lookup the relevant definitions and then try to find a conclusive argument why something answers the question. It might also be important to reflect on the quality of the used definitions. Sometimes, definitions should be changed. But changing a definition should always consider many different use-cases and perspectives, otherwise it becomes a single-use tool. And such a definition is not worth it.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    > Which English dictionary do you consider better? I generally rely on the OED; my bookshelf dictionary is the Concise Oxford Dictionary (it's not "concise"). But the OED is also descriptivist. In the full version of the OED, they give multiple attestations for each meaning (citations, dates, author and so on). That means you can form a judgement about how to use or interpret a word, quite independently of the definitions the lexicon proposes. I don't know of any English dictionary that isn't basically descriptivist. But I think M-W is pretty far along the descriptivist scale. I used to have a copy of the Chambers Etymological Dictionary. That was good, because it provided an explanation of every definition it gave. Even if the definition was dubious, you knew why they were offering it. I don't hate on descriptivism; usage needs to be described. It just pisses me off when a dictionary defines "literally" to mean "not literally", in the very words of their definition of "literally". You seem to have pretty good mastery of English, if it's not your mother tongue.
    - funcDropShadow 5y ago
      Thanks for the explanation, and thanks.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    Configuration and code: you could argue that code is simply configuration for a processor. I certainly wouldn't want to have to make the case that there's a difference.

denton-scratch 5y ago

I don't regard Merriam-Webster as authoritative. They are hard-core descriptivists; if they can find an attestation for some usage, however contradictory or plain wrong, they will list it in their lexicon. E.g. "literally": "In a completely accurate way; a story that is basically true even if not literally true". "In effect, virtually; used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible" So according to M-W, "literally" means the same as "not literally". Merriam-Webster debauch the English language.

eyelidlessness 5y ago
> They are hard-core descriptivists; if they can find an attestation for some usage, however contradictory or plain wrong, they will list it in their lexicon. AKA their dictionary accurately reflects language usage; the opposite being prescriptivism, wherein you reflect the language as you wish it was rather than actual usage.
funcDropShadow 5y ago
Interesting points. Because English is not my mother-tongue, I wasn't aware of perceived quality of that dictionary. I chose Merriam-Webster simply because it was the first hit in my online search. Which English dictionary do you consider better? But, I still find it important to look at definitions that are actually used out there. Some scientific papers I've read just redefined everything to fit their purpose. There is a fine line between making it practically impossible to communicate ideas based on common understanding of terms, and allowing those terms to evolve. Anyway, I am convinced it is a bad idea to try to "feel" or "impulsively answer" the question is json or yaml code. To answer such a question every intelligent person should, IMHO, remember or lookup the relevant definitions and then try to find a conclusive argument why something answers the question. It might also be important to reflect on the quality of the used definitions. Sometimes, definitions should be changed. But changing a definition should always consider many different use-cases and perspectives, otherwise it becomes a single-use tool. And such a definition is not worth it.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > Which English dictionary do you consider better? I generally rely on the OED; my bookshelf dictionary is the Concise Oxford Dictionary (it's not "concise"). But the OED is also descriptivist. In the full version of the OED, they give multiple attestations for each meaning (citations, dates, author and so on). That means you can form a judgement about how to use or interpret a word, quite independently of the definitions the lexicon proposes. I don't know of any English dictionary that isn't basically descriptivist. But I think M-W is pretty far along the descriptivist scale. I used to have a copy of the Chambers Etymological Dictionary. That was good, because it provided an explanation of every definition it gave. Even if the definition was dubious, you knew why they were offering it. I don't hate on descriptivism; usage needs to be described. It just pisses me off when a dictionary defines "literally" to mean "not literally", in the very words of their definition of "literally". You seem to have pretty good mastery of English, if it's not your mother tongue.
  - funcDropShadow 5y ago
    Thanks for the explanation, and thanks.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  Configuration and code: you could argue that code is simply configuration for a processor. I certainly wouldn't want to have to make the case that there's a difference.