3 ms·

> can be difficult to understand at first. If a concept is already painful to understand, is it prudent to make the pain worse by choosing words that could be

> can be difficult to understand at first. If a concept is already painful to understand, is it prudent to make the pain worse by choosing words that could be examples of grammatical alliteration? It it really a computer science department v/s english department thing? The article suggest better alternative, suggestive words to alleviate the confusion. My comment rants about the premise of the article - poor choice of words. we can debate a long time about keys with the label 101 on it being authentication or authorization or none. mine and OP's point is that a better choice of words can avoid these debates and make the world a little less ambiguous.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago
> mine and OP's point is that a better choice of words can avoid these debates and make the world a little less ambiguous. If you changed the words to different ones, we would just be having a different debate, because two words cannot resolve the inherent complexity of the subject matter. It would still be ambiguous because the concepts themselves are too complex to address in two words. You would, however, feel like they were simpler, because you chose simpler words that only cover a small fraction of the overall subject matter. This is a self-deception; you'll feel safer in your understanding of what's going on, but you will still have the same problems when trying to use them in different cases. Call it "login" or "jskjfhskjdf", your experience in doing engineering with them will be the same. ("login" does not encompass everything that is authentication, and "permissions" does not encompass everything that is authorization. there are "authentication permissions" and "authorization permissions", and some systems authenticate without "logging in". so you're still going to be confused later on with this choice of words, even if they had the same definitions as the current words)
- gofreddygo 2y ago
  > Call it "login" or "jskjfhskjdf", your experience in doing engineering with them will be the same. Don't agree. Won't argue.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

> mine and OP's point is that a better choice of words can avoid these debates and make the world a little less ambiguous. If you changed the words to different ones, we would just be having a different debate, because two words cannot resolve the inherent complexity of the subject matter. It would still be ambiguous because the concepts themselves are too complex to address in two words. You would, however, feel like they were simpler, because you chose simpler words that only cover a small fraction of the overall subject matter. This is a self-deception; you'll feel safer in your understanding of what's going on, but you will still have the same problems when trying to use them in different cases. Call it "login" or "jskjfhskjdf", your experience in doing engineering with them will be the same. ("login" does not encompass everything that is authentication, and "permissions" does not encompass everything that is authorization. there are "authentication permissions" and "authorization permissions", and some systems authenticate without "logging in". so you're still going to be confused later on with this choice of words, even if they had the same definitions as the current words)

gofreddygo 2y ago
> Call it "login" or "jskjfhskjdf", your experience in doing engineering with them will be the same. Don't agree. Won't argue.