- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Not my blog, but the author’s experience reminded me of my own frustrations with Microsoft GitHub.
Not my blog, but the author’s experience reminded me of my own frustrations with Microsoft GitHub.
Techical terms with specific meanings don’t vary significantly based on context, because consistency is important in technical usage.
The author is complaining about how guthub is being poorly modernized, which is the opposite of legacy software. If she means ‘something we choose use out of tradition’ that isn’t what legacy software means.
Every lexicographer I know would challenge that notion. (And I’ve had more than a few experiences in technical fields that challenge it as well.)
People sometimes express themselves using words that might not fit the discussed situation directly (at least not in the typical way), but do fit closely-associated experiences they’ve had. They use them because those are the words that come to mind at the time.
We could pedantically gatekeep their use of language and insist that their views/experiences are invalid because we don’t like their choice of words…
…or we could try to understand them.
What a great point to make about language in situations that are not technical! Like how theory is used differently outside of scientific contexts, which is language naturally evolving.
But this is like someone trying to use the lay definition of theory, which is the equivalent of a hypothesis in acience, in a scientific context. A scientist saying “that is just a theory” to dismiss the theory of relativity in a scientific context would be rightfully corrected by their peers.
Using legacy software wrong is like using API to describe something other than an API.
You’ve made your opinion clear; restating it and slinging downvotes doesn’t help anyone. Good day.