3 ms·

at what point did people start to use the word "pragmatic" for "opinionated"? (and I've heard it a lot lately...) I'm ok with opinionated technologies, but sto

by nnq 14y ago

at what point did people start to use the word "pragmatic" for "opinionated"? (and I've heard it a lot lately...) I'm ok with opinionated technologies, but stop calling them "pragmatic": when the implementer of a language or technology makes a choice that restricts how its users can do some things, it makes an opinionated decision, that just happens to be pragmatic in the use-context he has thought of, but may not be pragmatic at all for the use-context that some technology user imagines, like a language feature that may be hard-to-impossible to implement but that when done properly (and it only has to be done once) would simplify the lives of a large group of programmers that just want to do things in a certain way.

coldtea 14y ago
>at what point did people start to use the word "pragmatic" for "opinionated"? I don't think people are doing that. It's just that being pragmatic also makes you opinionated by necessity. Actually that would a very good definition: being pragmatic means you are "opinionated by necessity" (as opposed to opinionated by other concerns, e.g pureness, advancing the state of the art, etc). So being pragmatic is a subset of being opinionated, not a synonym. >when the implementer of a language or technology makes a choice that restricts how its users can do some things, it makes an opinionated decision, that just happens to be pragmatic in the use-context he has thought of, but may not be pragmatic at all for the use-context that some technology user imagines A language has thousands (millions) of users and every one can imagine whatever use-context. Not catering to all of them doesn't make you opinionated: merely pragmatic. Nobody has the time and the means to cater to all possible use-contexts. And we all know that adding too many things can ruin a language, over-complicate it and such. So that's another pragmatic concern. >like a language feature that may be hard-to-impossible to implement but that when done properly (and it only has to be done once) would simplify the lives of a large group of programmers that just want to do things in a certain way. Sounds like a very horrible feature to build into a language. Especially when you are starting out. If it's "hard-to-impossible to implement" then you are wasting tons of resources to something that might very well not pan out in the end. To reject this is not opinionated in the bad way. It's merely being pragmatic again, ie understanding that you have to prioritize things, and not go on a wild goose chase.
- unhammer 14y ago
  nitpicking: the extension of pragmatic is a subset of the extension of opinionated. The word pragmatic is a hyponym of opinionated.

by nnq 14y ago

coldtea 14y ago

>at what point did people start to use the word "pragmatic" for "opinionated"? I don't think people are doing that. It's just that being pragmatic also makes you opinionated by necessity. Actually that would a very good definition: being pragmatic means you are "opinionated by necessity" (as opposed to opinionated by other concerns, e.g pureness, advancing the state of the art, etc). So being pragmatic is a subset of being opinionated, not a synonym. >when the implementer of a language or technology makes a choice that restricts how its users can do some things, it makes an opinionated decision, that just happens to be pragmatic in the use-context he has thought of, but may not be pragmatic at all for the use-context that some technology user imagines A language has thousands (millions) of users and every one can imagine whatever use-context. Not catering to all of them doesn't make you opinionated: merely pragmatic. Nobody has the time and the means to cater to all possible use-contexts. And we all know that adding too many things can ruin a language, over-complicate it and such. So that's another pragmatic concern. >like a language feature that may be hard-to-impossible to implement but that when done properly (and it only has to be done once) would simplify the lives of a large group of programmers that just want to do things in a certain way. Sounds like a very horrible feature to build into a language. Especially when you are starting out. If it's "hard-to-impossible to implement" then you are wasting tons of resources to something that might very well not pan out in the end. To reject this is not opinionated in the bad way. It's merely being pragmatic again, ie understanding that you have to prioritize things, and not go on a wild goose chase.

unhammer 14y ago
nitpicking: the extension of pragmatic is a subset of the extension of opinionated. The word pragmatic is a hyponym of opinionated.