English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

[Xah Lee]

On May 24, 3:06 pm, Rikishi42 <skunkwo... at rikishi42.net> wrote:
> On 2011-05-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt... at 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