• JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because there are words that have less violent associations that can still capture the relationship sought to be described.

    [Stop using Nazi, war]

    Those aren’t used for computing though. And, yeah, I think if we did we probably should. Like if terms related to genocide were used for stopping a lot of processes at once that would be pretty weird to me.

    [death]

    Kill is used to refer to stopping processes and that’s probably where the line is in my opinion. It feels very different to me to say “kill a process” versus “genocide a group of processes”

    • lowleveldata@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We do use war. It’s a common package in Java. Should we rename that because it might make people uncomfortable when we say “We are going to deploy the war tomorrow”? Why can’t we just accept the fact that words have multiple meanings?

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a project I’m following where an opcode called “SUICIDE” (which deleted the program it was triggered from) was renamed “SELFDESTRUCT” because people were bothered by the reference to self-harm. I personally considered it a waste of effort, but at least in that case it was really just a matter of changing some strings in the documentation and having compilers accept either label for it, since the opcode itself didn’t change is value.

      The opcode is likely to be entirely deprecated soon anyway, which IMO makes it even more of a waste of time. Oh well.