3 ms·
It's one of those tongue-in-cheek mis-statements that make it into common usage, lose their scare-quotes or italicisation and become a different definition of t
by adhesive_wombat 3y ago
It's one of those tongue-in-cheek mis-statements that make it into common usage, lose their scare-quotes or italicisation and become a different definition of the same word. Other examples:
* "Literally" used in a way to refer to something that's clearly figurative
* "Non-trivial" used in a way to refer to something that is clearly extremely complicated
Much as I like to decry abuse of language¹, at some point one has just accept that a headword has gained a new bullet-point in the dictionary and move on.
1: and speaking, or, rather, attempting to speak, the Queen's^W King's English, the modern American-centric world certainly delivers opportunities for that!
- teddyh 3y ago“Articulate”.
- peteradio 3y agoIt's like when the electrician comments on some of my own electric handiwork. I believe he called it "nifty".
- palata 3y agoSure, I'm fine with that. I guess my point is that those posts, to me, just try to convey that one should write good code, and that good code is not necessarily using all the tricks in the book (rather not). But then they tend to go as far as to say "never use this concept, because it's too complex", or even go towards wishing that the language did not offer any "clever" features, which I disagree with. Yes, write good code, as in "maintainable". But don't say that a concept is always bad (be it tertiary operators, recursion or templates). It depends on the language, project and situation.