Re: Inclusive Language RFC
Marvin Häuser <mhaeuser@...>
On 25.10.21 20:47, Teng, Lynn L wrote:
Hello all,Some of these combinations sound very awkward because they are not strictly or strongly related language-wise. Examples:
- In my opinion, a replica can very well be a main, it just cannot be an original.
- "Responder" is very generic - "slave" conveys work, not just any sort of reaction
- "Primary" and "secondary" are clearly related, "main" and "secondary" are not.
The combination "leader"/"follower" could be interpreted politically if you just try hard enough, who knows what language revision proposals may look like in 10 years from now. Maybe drop it entirely. :)
Or similar descriptive terminologyI think this should be made stricter to "refused"/"permitted" and "granted"/"denied" to stay consistent with common usage.
My biggest issues with such proposals is they tell me which words to not use, but not which to use instead. Yes, there are plenty of alternatives given, but when do I use which? E.g. "host" / "target" already is a very common combination for debugging, but nobody would think of naming their main git branch "host". If you deprecate widely conventional terminology, in my opinion you should also provide clear and detailed guidelines for which sub-areas they are deprecated by which exact alternatives (e.g. "version control - main; debugging - host"). I don't think a terminology zoo where everybody picks their preference by gut feeling is in anyone's best interest.