6 ms·

I'm generally opposed to jargon in tech writing so the use of 'holotype' caused me to look it up. I'm not sure it works. For example, by the definition Hotmail

I'm generally opposed to jargon in tech writing so the use of 'holotype' caused me to look it up. I'm not sure it works. For example, by the definition Hotmail should be the holotype instead of GMail, which would be the paratype. (if I'm reading it right, I am not a zoologist.) How Hotmail changed Microsoft (and email) forever https://seforum.se/2019/01/08/the-history-of-hotmail/ https://seforum.se/2019/01/08/the-history-of-hotmail/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holotype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holotype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratype

vosper 4y ago
Yes, they could have just listed examples and done without the “holotype” term. I don’t think it detracts from the point of the post, though.
kaycebasques 4y ago
For sure it's a terrible name (sorry, Jason ;P). In my other comment I talk about my experiences pitching this idea when I was https://web.dev https://web.dev content lead. There's something about this word that is an immediate turnoff and prevents people from really looking deeply at it. Which is a shame because it's such a useful mental model. Names are important!
- SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
  Sometimes when going deep into a subject I have to pause and explain that it’s a very specific name for what we are talking about and while it may seem pedantic, Naming Things Is Actually Incredibly Important. IMO naming things properly is at least 25% of a good system design.
- webmaven 4y ago
  Could archetype/al/ical (or possibly prototypal) have been used instead? Both have associations with artefacts (usually authored and manufactured, respectively) rather than gathered specimens.
arthurcolle 4y ago
> if I'm reading it right, I am not a zoologist. This had me in stitches. I'm also not a huge fan of obfuscatory jargon, irrespective of how cromulent such language may be.
- dvngnt_ 4y ago
  but then you used the word "cromulent"
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    as a self-referential joke, hopefully!
    - arthurcolle 4y ago
      For other @arthurcolle classics, please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29371835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29371835
  - tomcam 4y ago
    We biologists put that in the taxonomy as a “joke“
  - gnat 4y ago
    See Blackadder Season 3 for an explanation of why "cromulent" is now a punchline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08
  - patmorgan23 4y ago
    Woosh
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
heavyset_go 4y ago
Something rubs me the wrong way about unnecessarily obfuscated jargon for relatively simple concepts in web development. The term "isomorphic code" has been living rent free in my head for like a decade and it still drives me nuts.
- mattgreenrocks 4y ago
  The goofy thing is how quickly that term fell out of the vernacular, and how few people (other than you) even stop to be amazed at the ridiculousness of it all in hindsight.
  - TimTheTinker 4y ago
    At the time, it seemed rather earth-shattering to be programming in the same language on both the front-end and the back-end without a browser plug-in or applet. The possibilities such an arrangement opened up seemed potentially vast. Up until that point, it had been a basic assumption that the front-end and back-end had to be done in different languages if you wanted a site/app above a certain quality threshold (though Java applets and Silverlight (C#) had previously provided a way to run the same language on the front and back ends).
    - b112 4y ago
      You're right, we need a PHP parser in ajax.
  - drittich 4y ago
    I didn't find it ridiculous. There were real, tangible benefits, like sharing the same validation code on the frontend and backend. Would I make it the sole reason to choose a given language? No, but there was demonstrable efficiency to it.
- aaronbrethorst 4y ago
  Big Thesaurus Energy is a pox on clear communications.
pdonis 4y ago
> by the definition Hotmail should be the holotype instead of GMail, which would be the paratype I think in this particular case the term "holotype" is being overloaded; it means both "general category of applications" and "what this author takes to be the canonical application in that category". I don't think an exact parallel to the zoological usage is intended.

vosper 4y ago

Yes, they could have just listed examples and done without the “holotype” term. I don’t think it detracts from the point of the post, though.

kaycebasques 4y ago

For sure it's a terrible name (sorry, Jason ;P). In my other comment I talk about my experiences pitching this idea when I was https://web.dev https://web.dev content lead. There's something about this word that is an immediate turnoff and prevents people from really looking deeply at it. Which is a shame because it's such a useful mental model. Names are important!

SOLAR_FIELDS 4y ago
Sometimes when going deep into a subject I have to pause and explain that it’s a very specific name for what we are talking about and while it may seem pedantic, Naming Things Is Actually Incredibly Important. IMO naming things properly is at least 25% of a good system design.
webmaven 4y ago
Could archetype/al/ical (or possibly prototypal) have been used instead? Both have associations with artefacts (usually authored and manufactured, respectively) rather than gathered specimens.

arthurcolle 4y ago

> if I'm reading it right, I am not a zoologist. This had me in stitches. I'm also not a huge fan of obfuscatory jargon, irrespective of how cromulent such language may be.

dvngnt_ 4y ago
but then you used the word "cromulent"
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  as a self-referential joke, hopefully!
  - arthurcolle 4y ago
    For other @arthurcolle classics, please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29371835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29371835
- tomcam 4y ago
  We biologists put that in the taxonomy as a “joke“
- gnat 4y ago
  See Blackadder Season 3 for an explanation of why "cromulent" is now a punchline: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08
- patmorgan23 4y ago
  Woosh
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

heavyset_go 4y ago

Something rubs me the wrong way about unnecessarily obfuscated jargon for relatively simple concepts in web development. The term "isomorphic code" has been living rent free in my head for like a decade and it still drives me nuts.

mattgreenrocks 4y ago
The goofy thing is how quickly that term fell out of the vernacular, and how few people (other than you) even stop to be amazed at the ridiculousness of it all in hindsight.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  At the time, it seemed rather earth-shattering to be programming in the same language on both the front-end and the back-end without a browser plug-in or applet. The possibilities such an arrangement opened up seemed potentially vast. Up until that point, it had been a basic assumption that the front-end and back-end had to be done in different languages if you wanted a site/app above a certain quality threshold (though Java applets and Silverlight (C#) had previously provided a way to run the same language on the front and back ends).
  - b112 4y ago
    You're right, we need a PHP parser in ajax.
- drittich 4y ago
  I didn't find it ridiculous. There were real, tangible benefits, like sharing the same validation code on the frontend and backend. Would I make it the sole reason to choose a given language? No, but there was demonstrable efficiency to it.
aaronbrethorst 4y ago
Big Thesaurus Energy is a pox on clear communications.

pdonis 4y ago

> by the definition Hotmail should be the holotype instead of GMail, which would be the paratype I think in this particular case the term "holotype" is being overloaded; it means both "general category of applications" and "what this author takes to be the canonical application in that category". I don't think an exact parallel to the zoological usage is intended.