5 ms·

This is one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding I've seen on this site.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
johnklos 4y ago
> one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding I think your reaction is an excellent example of a significant problem with discourse on the Internet. Correct terms matter. Using incorrect terminology just because it's common is no excuse. Being pedantic about things isn't helpful, either, but which is worse: a teacher in a specific field using terms incorrectly, and therefore passing along that incorrect usage, or someone pointing that out? So let's reexamine: is this "one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding", or is this the Internet showing its lack of tolerance for a genuine care for facts and correctness?
- biorach 4y ago
  I vote bikeshedding
- Blackthorn 4y ago
  Sorry but you veered way past "someone pointing it out" and crashed your car into the bike shed when you said "The author (Doeppner, it seems) should be embarrassed."
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  So, what is the correct term then: "Intel 64" or "AMD64"? That's what the CPU manufacturers call their specification of that architecture right now. Intel used to call it "IA-32e". AMD called it "x86-64" before they've released it, but then switched to "AMD64". All of those are "marketing names" used (or no longer used) by the manufacturers. How should we pick the correct one? Is there even a correct one?
  - johnklos 4y ago
    If "x64" can refer to amd64 or Intel 64, then it can also refer to PPC64, aarch64, mips64, et cetera. But Intel 64, amd64, x86_64, x86, all work because none are ambiguous or misleading. "IA-32e" would be confusing, but at least it refers to a specific Intel marketing term that one can look up. They're specific enough to avoid ambiguity. (to be fair, "Intel 64" could refer to Itanic, so that's not as unambiguous as it could be, but without context, it's reasonable most would assume it refers to 64 bit x86)
    - Joker_vD 4y ago
      > If "x64" can refer to amd64 or Intel 64, then it can also refer to PPC64, aarch64, mips64, et cetera. No, it cannot. It refers exactly to AMD64 (not "amd64", it's a GCC's marketing name) and Intel 64 (and their previous revisions) and nothing else. See, I too can omit middle terms in a logical sequence and simply assert the conclusion (You've omitted something like "and if the name can denote two things it may as well denote any number of things with vaguely similar alternative names" which is obviously ridiculous). > "Intel 64" could refer to Itanic By your own logic it could not. "Itanium" is a marketing name, the architecture's actual name was "IA-64". The things have names that people put on them. If people refer to AMD64 as "x64", then "x64" is a name of that thing, literally. Whether it's correct or not is a matter of convention and popularity, and your proposed convention is quite unpopular, I'd say.
      - johnklos 4y ago
        Ah. The logic of the masses. Apologies that this was a bit deep for you :)
blueflow 4y ago
Imagine having studied tons of literature for your thesis and then ending up in a industry that uses the same terms, except with half of them with a meaning that is incompatible with what you learned, but in a subtle manner.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

> one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding I think your reaction is an excellent example of a significant problem with discourse on the Internet. Correct terms matter. Using incorrect terminology just because it's common is no excuse. Being pedantic about things isn't helpful, either, but which is worse: a teacher in a specific field using terms incorrectly, and therefore passing along that incorrect usage, or someone pointing that out? So let's reexamine: is this "one of the most stark examples of bikeshedding", or is this the Internet showing its lack of tolerance for a genuine care for facts and correctness?

biorach 4y ago
I vote bikeshedding
Blackthorn 4y ago
Sorry but you veered way past "someone pointing it out" and crashed your car into the bike shed when you said "The author (Doeppner, it seems) should be embarrassed."
Joker_vD 4y ago
So, what is the correct term then: "Intel 64" or "AMD64"? That's what the CPU manufacturers call their specification of that architecture right now. Intel used to call it "IA-32e". AMD called it "x86-64" before they've released it, but then switched to "AMD64". All of those are "marketing names" used (or no longer used) by the manufacturers. How should we pick the correct one? Is there even a correct one?
- johnklos 4y ago
  If "x64" can refer to amd64 or Intel 64, then it can also refer to PPC64, aarch64, mips64, et cetera. But Intel 64, amd64, x86_64, x86, all work because none are ambiguous or misleading. "IA-32e" would be confusing, but at least it refers to a specific Intel marketing term that one can look up. They're specific enough to avoid ambiguity. (to be fair, "Intel 64" could refer to Itanic, so that's not as unambiguous as it could be, but without context, it's reasonable most would assume it refers to 64 bit x86)
  - Joker_vD 4y ago
    > If "x64" can refer to amd64 or Intel 64, then it can also refer to PPC64, aarch64, mips64, et cetera. No, it cannot. It refers exactly to AMD64 (not "amd64", it's a GCC's marketing name) and Intel 64 (and their previous revisions) and nothing else. See, I too can omit middle terms in a logical sequence and simply assert the conclusion (You've omitted something like "and if the name can denote two things it may as well denote any number of things with vaguely similar alternative names" which is obviously ridiculous). > "Intel 64" could refer to Itanic By your own logic it could not. "Itanium" is a marketing name, the architecture's actual name was "IA-64". The things have names that people put on them. If people refer to AMD64 as "x64", then "x64" is a name of that thing, literally. Whether it's correct or not is a matter of convention and popularity, and your proposed convention is quite unpopular, I'd say.
    - johnklos 4y ago
      Ah. The logic of the masses. Apologies that this was a bit deep for you :)

blueflow 4y ago

Imagine having studied tons of literature for your thesis and then ending up in a industry that uses the same terms, except with half of them with a meaning that is incompatible with what you learned, but in a subtle manner.