3 ms·

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...

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.