[Mono-list] laus stultitia

Hans Van Wesenbeeck h.vanwesenbeeck@computer.org
18 Oct 2002 09:54:48 -0700

On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 07:34, Michael Poole wrote:
> Hans Van Wesenbeeck writes:
> > Jargon typically comes about to create an artificial barrier between an
> > in-crowd and the outside world. "Do you speak M$?"  Terminology comes
> > about to effectively communicate ideas. It seems to me it is the latter
> > we should be after.
> I think here _you_ are drawing an artificial distinction.  The
> (applicable) definition of jargon is "specialized technical
> terminology characteristic of a particular subject" (from WordNet).
May be so, it's not my point. The point is that the terminology, or
jargon if you will, is introduced in support of a particular software
dissemination model. What is terminology such as dll's, so's, bytecode,
assemblies, P/Invoke, COM/DCOM components, and even rpm's really all
about? It's the kind of reuse you're after when you don't have the
sources. Is bytecode necessary, be it JVM or CIL, when the sources are
available? Is it really a desirable intermediate representation, before
becoming 'executable'?

> While there is value in identifying and countering closed-source or
> other "bad" jargon, please do not use "jargon" itself to mean "bad
> jargon," since that is not a meaning used in the wider community.
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the effort that goes
into Mono. I normally keep my criticism to myself. But I believe Erik
Poupaert made a valid point, which goes way further than the distinction
between 'jargon' and 'terminology', and may well be worth being brought
to everyone's attention.