Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:07:22 -0600 From: Janketh Jay <jankyj@unfs.us> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: suggestion for pkgdb from ports-mgmt/portupgrade: add more explanation Message-ID: <4E61E03A.7080502@unfs.us> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109030142530.35982@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc> References: <201109011333.p81DX2sN081775@fire.js.berklix.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109021657410.1576@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc> <4E61BB11.9070007@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1109030142530.35982@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 09/03/2011 01:56 AM, Lars Eighner wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2011, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 09/02/2011 14:58, Lars Eighner wrote: > >>> The main thing here, of course, is that ports uses "dependency" in >>> the >>> exact opposite of its normal English sense (just as twitter uses >>> "following" in the exact opposite of its normal English sense). >>> >>> In normal English 'X is a dependency of Y' means Y is necessary >>> for X (X >>> depends on Y) >> >> I'm not sure why you believe this to be true. > > Because it is a fact. > >> Can you give examples from non-technical English prose, and some >> dictionary definitions to back up your claim? > > I am a little hurt that my own authority does not suffice for both > the New > York Times Book Review and the Time Literary Supplement (that's in > London, > y'all) have remarked on my mastery of the English language. But > much more > than that, I am appalled at the state of education in this country > that you > do not immediately recognize for yourself that my point is correct, > once I > have made it. > > There are two senses of 'dependency' in normal English. One means > 'the state > of dependence, (MWCD11th expresses this as being a synonym for > DEPENDENCE; > this is the oldest sense in English because MWCD11th lists senses in > historical order), and the other is something that is dependent on > something > else. Well, okay, there are three senses, as there is a relatively > recent > one meaning a small building (such as a stable, garage, or bike shed) > adjacent to a larger one. > > Almost all of the examples I turn up from grepping my corpus relate to > international relations except for the most recent entries where it > is bound > to 'Chemical.' Well, 'chemical dependency' is perfectly common modern > English and of course it does not mean the chemical depends on the > user, but > just the opposite. > > So in normal English, if I write myperlscript.pl, it is a dependency of > perl. My script cannot run without perl, but perl can go on happily > without > my script. Perl does not depend on my script, so it is not the > dependency. My script does depend on perl, so my script is the > dependency. > > The correct word for what computer people call a dependency is > 'requisite.' > Perl is a requisite of my script. My script is a dependency of perl. > > Why is there such a thing as emacs cramp? Because the person who > wrote it > considered himself such a genius that he did not have to think of > ergonomics > and so bound just about everything to ^X and ^C and combinations > thereof > (and subsequent geniuses have made the possibly of remapping merely > theoretical). Why are most editors and word processors just about > unusable > (out of the box) for writers? Because programmers are such > geniuses, the > idea of consulting working writers before they begin such a project > seems > laughable to them. > > And that is why ports uses 'dependency' exactly backwards -- the > authors are > such geniuses that they cannot be bothered to open a dictionary for > themselves. I can think of a case in point. > > Now it is possible that once upon a time there was a programmer who > knew > what dependency meant, and he might have said something like "My > script has > a dependency on perl." That is accurate, but very awkward compared > with > "Perl is a requisite of my script." And perhaps that awkward > expression was > passed around among the programmerlings, as in the game gossip, > until it > became "Perl is a dependency of my script," which is dead wrong, so if > my script is a port, and perl is missing, the report "stale > dependency" is > entirely misleading. My script is the dependency. It is not > stale. It is > missing its requisite, namely perl. > > It is a constant source of confusion for native speakers of English, > and to > a degree a source of amusement that documentation which has not yet > been > expressed in correct English is being translated into dozens of > languages > which take up space in machines that accept the default install. > One of the best most unnecessary replies to something unneeded I've read in a long, LONG time. Well done, sir! (It's a keeper!) - -Janky Jay, III -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5h4DoACgkQGK3MsUbJZn6q3QCePhBtBbUfd90ORira5YuZ+OYu F5oAnjzHraki17HKOccoOB4rUCly+g5D =CNIG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E61E03A.7080502>