[Mono-list] laus stultitia

[Michael Poole]

Hans Van Wesenbeeck writes:

> 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'?

The question "Is this technology a good thing?" (where the technology
is bytecode or whatever else you like) is totally different from the
names one uses for it.  Erik Poupaert complained about the amount of
detail and the number of divisions in the system, not about the fact
that the ".NET platform" uses bytecode.  You replied (to Zaphod) with
a rant about the jargon.

Any time you have a highly technical application domain, there will be
jargon specific to it, for reasons that are incredibly off-topic for
this list and which you (as an IEEE member and computer user) should
know already.  Would you clarify whether you complain about the use of
jargon, or the use of the technology it describes?

Michael