Fortran - definitions -- and exact versus close

Author

definitions -- and exact versus close

Kevin G. Rhoads

2006-07-23, 6:59 pm

>Bogus:adj: Counterfeit, spurious, fake.
> Implicitly intentional. Never meaning "mistaken", "incorrect",
>"debatable".

The standard dictionary definition for "bogus" was not what I had in mind,
being rather the more programmerish usage with which I am familiar, which
whilst equally negative, is IMHO more akin to the "spurious" which is also
included in the standard dictionary definition.

To the extent you perceived me as making comments upon your motivations or
intent, I most certainly do apologize. I had no intent to criticize your
intent or motivation. I tried to criticize the description of technical
issues without criticizing the person, in which I clearly failed.

However, in programming, as with many technical disciplines, outcomes can
vary between success and failure hinged upon what non-technical people
perceive as minor details. To the extent that incorrect nomenclature will
thus facilitate failure, I think it is apt to call it forth as incorrect.
For this, I have on occasion used "bogus" in the more jargonish form rather
than the standard dictionary usage. You are welcome to suggest some terminology
which will be more apt, or apropos, given your predilections. I will certainly
consider any alternates suggested.

This is rampant amongst the non-technologically inclined and even among those
who are working on the fringes of hard-core technology. Which description,
I will make clear, I do NOT think applies to you, even in the slightest.

I still clearly remember when first I bumped into this casual consideration
of terminology by technolgically laypersons. I was in high school, and an
acquiantance, known to me as a scientifically inclined academic track student
with an interest in home film developing and, by inference, some experience in
safe handling of chemicals expressed an interest in mild contact explosives.
I told him about nitrogen tri-iodide, and a synthesis using household ammonia
and tincture of iodine. That was on Friday. On Monday he complained vigorously
at what a waste of time I'd sent him on. But further inquiry revealed that
he'd been unable to locate tincture of iodine at home and had substituted
tincture of merthiolate.

I assume you already know the moral of the story:
In technical endeavors, unlike with horseshoes and hand-grenades, close is
rarely good enough. This is certainly true enough for most programming
work.

So what terminology would apply to close, but not close enough, in someone's
description? I am interested in any and all suggestions.

John Harper

2006-07-23, 6:59 pm

In article <44C3F699.F075F3C9@alum.mit.edu>,
Kevin G. Rhoads <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>The standard dictionary definition for "bogus" was not what I had in mind,
>being rather the more programmerish usage with which I am familiar, which
>whilst equally negative, is IMHO more akin to the "spurious" which is also
>included in the standard dictionary definition.

I don't know what that programmerish usage is, having only started
writing programs in 1963, and neither does the Oxford English Dictionary
(2nd ed. 1989). They are in the middle of preparing the 3rd ed. and are
always grateful for new words and new usages of existing words, but you
do have to supply at least one quotation that illustrates it, preferably
from a published source.

See http://dictionary.oed.com/readers/research.html#date

-- John Harper, School of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science,
Victoria University, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand
e-mail john.harper@vuw.ac.nz phone (+64)(4)463 5341 fax (+64)(4)463 5045

Kevin G. Rhoads

2006-07-24, 7:59 am

>I don't know what that programmerish usage is, having only started
>writing programs in 1963,

You are a few years ahead of me there, but no more than 2 to 4. Unfortunately,
I don't remember exactly where I ran into that use of "bogus", but I do know
it was not widespread at the time. It was fairly local, and apparantly remained
quite so. I sort-of picked up on it since it seemed so apropos to the kind
of situation.

But then I regularly use "somewhen" when speaking instead of "sometime". Some
people seem to think I have an outre working vocabulary, but I rather think of
it as having a wider dynamic range ;-)

It does mean I need to be wary for situations wherein my word usages are misinterpreted.
But since that seems all to common even when I restrict my word usage most severely,
I see no reason to avoid the enjoyment of exercising discretionary and expressionary
word choice.

If I can find a written example ot that usage of "bogus", I shall submit it.

Kevin G. Rhoads

2006-07-24, 7:59 am

>But since that seems all to common
But since that seems all too common

Les

2006-07-24, 7:59 am

"Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:44C4BED8.196D0425@alum.mit.edu...
>
> You are a few years ahead of me there, but no more than 2 to 4.
> Unfortunately,
> I don't remember exactly where I ran into that use of "bogus", but I do
> know
> it was not widespread at the time. It was fairly local, and apparantly
> remained
> quite so. I sort-of picked up on it since it seemed so apropos to the
> kind
> of situation.
>
> But then I regularly use "somewhen" when speaking instead of "sometime".
> Some
> people seem to think I have an outre working vocabulary, but I rather
> think of
> it as having a wider dynamic range ;-)
>
> It does mean I need to be wary for situations wherein my word usages are
> misinterpreted.
> But since that seems all to common even when I restrict my word usage most
> severely,
> I see no reason to avoid the enjoyment of exercising discretionary and
> expressionary
> word choice.
>
> If I can find a written example ot that usage of "bogus", I shall submit
> it.

As a regular reader of c.l.f I am occasionally amused and sometimes bemused
by the differences between UK English and Rest Of The World English. For
example the US usage of "leary" where I would use "wary". OneLook dictionary
gives the definition of leary as :

"noun: United States psychologist who experimented with psychoactive drugs
(including LSD) and became a well-known advocate of their use (1920-1996) "

I think he wrote quite a lot of the code I am having to debug :-)

Les

meek@skyway.usask.ca

2006-07-24, 7:00 pm

In a previous article, "Les" <l.neilson@nospam.acecad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
>news:44C4BED8.196D0425@alum.mit.edu...
>
>As a regular reader of c.l.f I am occasionally amused and sometimes bemused
>by the differences between UK English and Rest Of The World English. For
>example the US usage of "leary" where I would use "wary". OneLook dictionary
>gives the definition of leary as :
>
>"noun: United States psychologist who experimented with psychoactive drugs
>(including LSD) and became a well-known advocate of their use (1920-1996) "
>
>I think he wrote quite a lot of the code I am having to debug :-)
>
>Les
>
>
but if you spelt it leery you might find a different
definition...
Chris

Michael Prager

2006-07-24, 7:00 pm

"Les" <l.neilson@nospam.acecad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>As a regular reader of c.l.f I am occasionally amused and sometimes bemused
>by the differences between UK English and Rest Of The World English. For
>example the US usage of "leary" where I would use "wary". OneLook dictionary
>gives the definition of leary as :
>
>"noun: United States psychologist who experimented with psychoactive drugs
>(including LSD) and became a well-known advocate of their use (1920-1996) "
>
>I think he wrote quite a lot of the code I am having to debug :-)

Very possibly. I'd be leery of working on any code written by
Leary.

M

--
Mike Prager, NOAA, Beaufort, NC
Address spam-trapped; remove color to reply.
* Opinions expressed are personal and not represented otherwise.
* Any use of tradenames does not constitute a NOAA endorsement.

Dave Thompson

2006-07-31, 4:00 am

On 24 Jul 2006 12:03:31 +1200, harper@mcs.vuw.ac.nz (John Harper)
wrote:

> In article <44C3F699.F075F3C9@alum.mit.edu>,
> Kevin G. Rhoads <kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
To be somewhat more specific, this usage is probably in a dialect
called 'hackish' developed mostly in the '60s thru '80s by a conscious
subculture of mostly academics doing programming and related
activities who called themselves 'hackers' -- in a positive meaning
very unlike and even opposite to the (mis)use of that term now common
for (virtual/cyber) vandals, thieves, fraudsters, and extortionists.

> I don't know what that programmerish usage is, having only started
> writing programs in 1963, and neither does the Oxford English Dictionary
> (2nd ed. 1989). They are in the middle of preparing the 3rd ed. and are
> always grateful for new words and new usages of existing words, but you
> do have to supply at least one quotation that illustrates it, preferably
> from a published source.
>
> See http://dictionary.oed.com/readers/research.html#date
>
There is a compendium of 'mainstream' hackish in the 'Jargon File'
maintained by Eric S Raymond last (AFAIK) at www.catb.org/~esr .
(I say mainstream because hackers being the sort of people they are,
there is never complete and universal agreement on anything.)
Some years ago, about 1990 IIRC, an earlier but not radically
different version of this was published as a real book "The Hacker's
Dictionary" by a real publisher, and I would expect the OED folks (and
similar) to already know about that at least.

- David.Thompson1 at worldnet.att.net

Sponsored Links