On May 24, 3:06 pm, Rikishi42 <skunkwo...@rikishi42.net> wrote: > 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. :-)
very well said, Rikishi42. this one is probably the most intelligent post in this thread. Xah -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
