Why does this thread keep saying it has new posts? No one has posted anything? Does voting in the poll actually bump?
Yes. Stupid feature of IPB
Why does this thread keep saying it has new posts? No one has posted anything? Does voting in the poll actually bump?
Yes. Stupid feature of IPB
. 22 Racing Series .
You make games on a char memory pointer? That's hardcore.No, no, I make my games on a cmptr.
I'm not sure C++ needs to be restricted by prescriptive English grammar rules.
Maybe not, but "puter" and "stood" sound ignorant.
The prescriptivist in me agrees. And yet, I've talked to multiple programmers in person about this and they've all agreed with me that pronouncing "std" as "stid" (at least) communicates more information than "standard" since "standard" is such a generic term. Granted, "std::shared_ptr" is pretty C++-specific, but what if I say "standard copy," or "standard accumulate", or "standard fill?" How many programmers, even C++ programmers, would immediately understand that as "std::copy", "std::accumulate," and "std::fill"? Or even "standard vector?" Speaking from experience: not all of them. Not every programmer, especially game programmers who've spent most their careers working in C or using C++ without the standard library, is that familiar with the standard library. Not all C++ programmers bother to follow the latest standards, either.
"Standard vector" could refer to std::vector, or it could refer to the custom vector-like container that is standard across a particular engine. It could even refer to a custom mathematical vector structure that is standard across the engine. "stid vector" is very obviously std::vector.
I assert that applying English prescriptivism to any programming language with its associated multitude of jargon and overloaded terms is not simply practical. Furthermore, even in natural languages, a statement that communicates more information, but is grammatically incorrect, is more useful than one that is grammatically correct, but vague. I use the pronunciations I do because experience tells me that they are more useful. I'd imagine Herb would give similar reasons to the ones I have, but I don't pretend to speak for him.
The prescriptivist in me agrees. And yet, I've talked to multiple programmers in person about this and they've all agreed with me that pronouncing "std" as "stid" (at least) communicates more information than "standard" since "standard" is such a generic term. Granted, "std::shared_ptr" is pretty C++-specific, but what if I say "standard copy," or "standard accumulate", or "standard fill?" How many programmers, even C++ programmers, would immediately understand that as "std::copy", "std::accumulate," and "std::fill"? Or even "standard vector?" Speaking from experience: not all of them. Not every programmer, especially game programmers who've spent most their careers working in C or using C++ without the standard library, is that familiar with the standard library. Not all C++ programmers bother to follow the latest standards, either.
"Standard vector" could refer to std::vector, or it could refer to the custom vector-like container that is standard across a particular engine. It could even refer to a custom mathematical vector structure that is standard across the engine. "stid vector" is very obviously std::vector.
I assert that applying English prescriptivism to any programming language with its associated multitude of jargon and overloaded terms is not simply practical. Furthermore, even in natural languages, a statement that communicates more information, but is grammatically incorrect, is more useful than one that is grammatically correct, but vague. I use the pronunciations I do because experience tells me that they are more useful. I'd imagine Herb would give similar reasons to the ones I have, but I don't pretend to speak for him.
The prescriptivist in me agrees. And yet, I've talked to multiple programmers in person about this and they've all agreed with me that pronouncing "std" as "stid" (at least) communicates more information than "standard" since "standard" is such a generic term. Granted, "std::shared_ptr" is pretty C++-specific, but what if I say "standard copy," or "standard accumulate", or "standard fill?" How many programmers, even C++ programmers, would immediately understand that as "std::copy", "std::accumulate," and "std::fill"? Or even "standard vector?" Speaking from experience: not all of them. Not every programmer, especially game programmers who've spent most their careers working in C or using C++ without the standard library, is that familiar with the standard library. Not all C++ programmers bother to follow the latest standards, either.
"Standard vector" could refer to std::vector, or it could refer to the custom vector-like container that is standard across a particular engine. It could even refer to a custom mathematical vector structure that is standard across the engine. "stid vector" is very obviously std::vector.
I assert that applying English prescriptivism to any programming language with its associated multitude of jargon and overloaded terms is not simply practical. Furthermore, even in natural languages, a statement that communicates more information, but is grammatically incorrect, is more useful than one that is grammatically correct, but vague. I use the pronunciations I do because experience tells me that they are more useful. I'd imagine Herb would give similar reasons to the ones I have, but I don't pretend to speak for him.
OK, that does make sense. Still can we not come up with something better than "stood" or "stid"? Something descriptive? I would almost prefer "S-T-D". And there is NO excuse for "puter"! None! That is simply stupid! The word "pointer" has one meaning in computer programming and only one meaning and it takes the same time to say as "puter".
I concede on "pointer," but I don't think "std" needs to be "more descriptive" when it's already descriptive of itself. It's a name. Do you condemn "Rich" for not being a descriptive enough shortening of "Richard?" :)
I concede on "pointer," but I don't think "std" needs to be "more descriptive" when it's already descriptive of itself. It's a name. Do you condemn "Rich" for not being a descriptive enough shortening of "Richard?"
I guess I should rephrase. Replace "more descriptive" with "less stupid sounding".
I concede on "pointer," but I don't think "std" needs to be "more descriptive" when it's already descriptive of itself. It's a name. Do you condemn "Rich" for not being a descriptive enough shortening of "Richard?"
I guess I should rephrase. Replace "more descriptive" with "less stupid sounding".
Fair enough. :P
Someone who calls pointer a putter would do my head in very fast. Just like the people who call sql "sequel" or "squill"...
Go go gadget Grammar nazi!
Games/Projects Currently In Development:
Discord RPG Bot | D++ - The Lightweight C++ Discord API Library | TriviaBot Discord Trivia Bot
SQL was intended to be called sequel...Someone who calls pointer a putter would do my head in very fast. Just like the people who call sql "sequel" or "squill"... :(
Go go gadget Grammar nazi!
. 22 Racing Series .
S-Q-L and My-S-Q-L has always been how I thought of it and talk about it. Talking to someone who uses "Sequel" and "My Sequel" is weird at first, but easy enough to roll with.
Those who think animated images on the web have anything to do with some brand of peanut butter I don't even buy however... those people can do die in a fire or something, just as long as I don't have to deal with them.