4 ms·

The "clearing up ambiguity" thing is bullshit. Nobody is going to fail to use context clues to figure out what is meant by "Go" in this discussion. Where such

The "clearing up ambiguity" thing is bullshit. Nobody is going to fail to use context clues to figure out what is meant by "Go" in this discussion. Where such disambiguation is actually needed, "Go (language)" or simply "go-lang"/"golang" is preferred. You know, since they are not incorrect. "Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does." It is annoying because it is incorrect, because you have been corrected multiple times, and because what you are attempting to do is transparent as hell. I, and I imagine many others, do not have a strong appreciation for botched attempts at subtlety.

0xABADC0DA 15y ago
For instance: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.android.gahran/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.androi... Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps > It is annoying because it is incorrect Maybe some English professor, technical writer, or journalist reading this can chime in and explain how so. It seems to be the standard practice and I intend to use the best grammar and construction that I am capable of, as bad as that may be. This isn't Twitter.
- 4ad 15y ago
  It's incorrect for the same reason Apple LLVM or Juniper FreeBSD is incorrect, and it's bullshit because in a thread about Go, people know what Go refers to. FWIW, the Windows, Plan 9, OpenBSD and NetBSD ports were done entirely by the community. AT&T C? That's even less specific than Go. What about gccgo? Google/GNU Go? What about the commercial implementations?
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps Yes, and then we see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) Give me a fucking break. You are clearly not worth engaging in discussion; I'm done.
- agentS 15y ago
  An answer, by way of analogy. When referring to a friend named "Edward" in a text to another friend planning Edward's surprise birthday party, you can probably refer to him as "Ed" or "Edward". You definitely don't need to refer to him as "Edward (Parent's SSN:12345...)" or "Edward (Philip's Son)". While these latter forms are less ambiguous (and more searchable, to boot), the context is more than sufficient to disambiguate.

0xABADC0DA 15y ago

For instance: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.android.gahran/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.androi... Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps > It is annoying because it is incorrect Maybe some English professor, technical writer, or journalist reading this can chime in and explain how so. It seems to be the standard practice and I intend to use the best grammar and construction that I am capable of, as bad as that may be. This isn't Twitter.

4ad 15y ago
It's incorrect for the same reason Apple LLVM or Juniper FreeBSD is incorrect, and it's bullshit because in a thread about Go, people know what Go refers to. FWIW, the Windows, Plan 9, OpenBSD and NetBSD ports were done entirely by the community. AT&T C? That's even less specific than Go. What about gccgo? Google/GNU Go? What about the commercial implementations?
burgerbrain 15y ago
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps Yes, and then we see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language) Give me a fucking break. You are clearly not worth engaging in discussion; I'm done.
agentS 15y ago
An answer, by way of analogy. When referring to a friend named "Edward" in a text to another friend planning Edward's surprise birthday party, you can probably refer to him as "Ed" or "Edward". You definitely don't need to refer to him as "Edward (Parent's SSN:12345...)" or "Edward (Philip's Son)". While these latter forms are less ambiguous (and more searchable, to boot), the context is more than sufficient to disambiguate.