English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively

[sal migondis]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, sal migondis <salmig99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Thorsten Kampe <thorsten at thorstenkampe.de>
> Subject: Re: English Idiom in Unix: Directory Recursively
> Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:46:58 +0200
> To: python-list at python.org
>
> * Steven D'Aprano (26 May 2011 10:06:44 GMT)
>>
>> On Thu, 26 May 2011 10:48:07 +0200, Thorsten Kampe wrote:
>>
>> > But not to digress, the /real/ problem with commands or idioms like "rm
>> > -r" is /not/ their choice of option names but that they explain these
>> > options in the exact same terms. No one would have a problem with "-r,
>> > --recursive -- remove directories including all sub-directories" instead
>> > of "-r, --recursive -- remove directories and their contents
>> > recursively".
>>
>> I think you are understanding the description "remove directories and
>> their contents recursively" as a description of the *mechanism* by which
>> rm removes the directory, i.e. some recursive tree-walking function that
>> visits each node and deletes it.
>>
>> I don't believe that's how the description is meant to be understood. I
>> understand it as describing the effect, not the implementation.

> It doesn't matter how I interprete the explanation "-r = recursively
> delete". [..]

Quite the contrary.. and that's the whole issue: your superficial
knowledge of the English language..  :-)

>> You're interpreting the reference to "recursive" as a nod to the
>> implementation. I'm not, and therefore your arguments don't convince
>> me.
>
> No one understands what "recursively delete" means

... _We_ do.. :-)

> until someone explains ("translates") it to him. This is not an argument
> but a simple fact. I experienced it many times, others here in the thread
> did and probably you, too.
>
> "recursively delete" is completely unneccessary because there is already
> a simple explanation that everyone understands without translation
> ("delete including subdirectories").

.. which is very poor 'style' indeed.

Style is not a matter of aesthetics. It's all about clarity and expressiveness.
It's about effectively communicating your thoughts to your audience. When
I hear or read 'delete recursively', I immediately 'get the idea' and I can
move on..

Now, if I heard 'delete including subdirectories', my first reaction would be..
ouch, I bet that hurts.. or ugh.. how ugly.. See, I'm distracted already.

But it doesn't stop there.. After the initial jolt to my attention, I'd start
thinking along the lines of.. hm. subdirectories.. now what about
sub sub directories.. etc. not seriously, perhaps.. but by the time I got
over it and was able to focus again on what was being said (or what
I was reading) I would have lost the thread.

This is why the author of the document puts paid to all the  nonsense
and instinctively uses 'recursively delete', not going into irrelevant
details.

It's that simple.

> It's unnecessary bullshit buzzword bingo from nerds which adds or helps
> or explains nothing. It's just that simple.

This has nothing to do with buzzwords whatsoever.

Despite polite hints from several other posters, the problem is that (like
the OP) you are not a native speaker of English but you will not listen and
still think you are qualified to make recommendations regarding usage and
abusage in the English language.

Sorry pal, but right here, you are like the kellet teaching the fishes to swim.

Sal.