On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
>>> I think that is a patronizing remark that under-estimates the
>>> intelligence of lay people and over-estimates the difficulty of
>>> understanding recursion.
>>
>> Why would you presume this to be related to intelligence? The point was
>> not about being *able* to understand, but about *needing* to understand
>> in order to use.
>
> Maybe they don't "need" to understand recursion. So what?
I think you should read the earlier posts again, this is drifting so far
from what I intended.
What I mean is: I'm certain that over the years I've had more than one
person come to me and ask what 'Do you wish to delete this directory
recursively?' meant. BAut never have I been asked to explain what 'Do you
wish to delete this directory and it's subdirs/with all it's contents?'
meant. Never.
> Recursion is a perfectly good English word, no more technical than
> "accelerate" or "incinerate" or "dissolve" or "combustion". Do people
> need to know the word "combustion" when they could say "burn" instead?
It wasn't about the word, but about the nature of the function. Besides, if
the chance exists of a confusion between a recursive job and the fact the
job is done using a recursive function... I would try staying away from the
expression.
Why not use 'delete a directory'. It's obvious the content gets binned, too.
Do you know many people who incinerate leaves and branches in their garden?
I burn them.
> Do they need to know the words "microwave oven" when they could be saying
> "invisible rays cooking thing"?
The word oven has existed for ages, microwave is just a name for the type of
oven. Not even a description, just a name.
> I wonder whether physicists insist that cars should have a "go faster
> pedal" because ordinary people don't need to understand Newton's Laws of
> Motion in order to drive cars?
Gas pedal. Pedal was allraedy known when the car was invented. The simple
addition of gas solved that need. Oh, and it's break pedal, not
descellarator. (sp?)
> Who are you to say that people shouldn't be exposed to words you deem
> that they don't need to know?
I'm one of the 'people'. You say exposed to, I say bothered/bored with.
I have nothing against the use of a proper, precise term. And that word can
be a complex one with many, many sylables (seems to add value, somehow).
But I'm not an academic, so I don't admire the pedantic use of terms that
need to be explained to 'lay' people. Especially if there is a widespread,
usually shorter and much simpler one for it. A pointless effort if
pointless, even when comming from a physicist. :-)
--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
