intimidating terminology (was: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Time for a
jonathanccast at fastmail.fm
Fri Dec 19 18:08:25 EST 2008
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 09:13 +0000, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> When accurate names for Haskell concepts already exist we should use
> them (as we have tried in the past). There has been too much
> invention of misleading terminology in computing already.
There are two possible cases (this applies to any branch of mathematics,
or mathematical discipline):
a) Use existing words, and give them new meanings. Then you're using a
word that already means something else.
Best example: series vs. sequence in calculus.
b) Invent a new word (probably based on Latin or Greek roots). Then
you're using incomprehensible and frightening technical jargon.
Best example: catamorphism (apparently).
So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
My solution: stop caring what people think.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe