Making mock (was Re: "Python Redesign" (fwd))

Aahz aahz at
Mon Sep 8 22:30:17 CEST 2003

In article <5XmdnSsEgZVGSsGiU-KYvw at>,
Terry Reedy <tjreedy at> wrote:
>"Aahz" <aahz at> wrote in message
>news:bjif13$ou8$1 at
>> In article <TsmdnYgCScjFEsGiU-KYgw at>,
>> Terry Reedy <tjreedy at> wrote:
>>>What we were directed to was *not* a mockup (model), but an image of a
>>>mockup.  That mislabeling was a source of misunderstanding which
>>>generated part of the criticism.  Please let us keep the useful
>>>distinction between a thing and an image of the thing.
>> And I'll repeat that in addition to Peter's valid point about differing
>> definitions of mockups, Tim was not the person who pointed "us" at it.
>So what?  I neither said nor implied so.  The identity of the original
>pointer is irrelevant to the point I made.  And so is repetition of a
>correction of an error I did not make.

It's not so much that the identity of the pointer is relevant as that
the context in which "mockup" is used is important.  I think it's
certainly appropriate, for example, to use "mockup" to describe the
whiteboard of a proposed design during a brainstorming session.  That's
why I made my comment.

>In any case, Parkin also used (and today defended) the word himself in
>his subsequent posts.  Leaving dictionaries aside, the use of the
>disputable word 'mockup' instead of the accurate word 'image' lead to
>unfulfilled expectations and criticisms based thereon.  Indeed, Parkin
>himself deflected such criticisms several times by saying 'its just an
>image' [and not the html mockup some thought it was].

You yourself are now using the phrase "html mockup" as a specific kind
of mockup.  That's an accurate phrasing.

>Do you really think inexact words that lead to misunderstanding are as
>useful as exact words that do not?  Do you really think the
>distinction between object and image is useless?  These are the
>questions I raised and gave my answer to.

The distinction isn't useless, but neither do I think this was an
example of inexact language *in* *context*.  If I specifically wanted to
refer to a non-image mockup, I'd say "working mockup" or something like
that, perhaps "HTML mockup" as you did if I were referring to a web
Aahz (aahz at           <*>

This is Python.  We don't care much about theory, except where it intersects 
with useful practice.  --Aahz

More information about the Python-list mailing list