Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Phrases in computing that might need retiring

sicpers.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 291 posts

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#151

Post by Toreno96 »

edrxty wrote: post #8

Strong disagree on "technical debt" Rather, the entire world is built on it and there's some level of acceptance required, but we definitely need a shorthand phrase for "we're doing something stupid that will save us time now and make us hate ourselves a year from now" Edit: thinking on it, also "devops". It's really job title for "sysadmin but paid and owned by the software department to keep ITs fingers out of ever…

> It's sorta like how snapchat used an obfuscated UI to keep parents out.

If anyone's else also confused about that part, there's some context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19022640

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#152

Post by srvmshr »

tpxl wrote: post #146
srvmshr wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

APIs, frameworks & libraries are so often being used interchangeably & its getting confusing for us too, specially if planning for a new feature to integrate "is it a framework? is it a library? is it a API" whenever I have a cursory glance at a product on HN/Github or likewise

I mean, a library has an API (the public facing stuff you're supposed to use), a framework probably also has an API (or rather, a bunch of them), and a service also probably has a Web API (assuming you're programming against said service).

Yes, but its not me getting confused. But the documentation is a mess many times

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#153

Post by samatman »

jmfayard wrote: post #59
InCityDreams wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question. Why bother downvoting, and not just move along? Perhaps there should be a button for 'disagree strongly'.

Those are polar opposites. A button for 'disagree strongly' should upvote a comment. When Einstein and Niels Bohr 'strongly disagree' on quantum physics in 1927, they start a debate that makes both of them more enlightened. When a bullshit artist, who couldn't care less about the truth, hijack a discussion to make it all about Him (it's almost always a dude), everyone become dumber. "Moving along" is not enough becau…

> (it's almost always a dude)

Yes you are https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32247166

> hijack a discussion to make it all about Him

Yeah, irrelevant misandry will do that.

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#154

Post by munch117 »

zasdffaa wrote: post #56

I'll add 'UI/UX' or 'UX' when they're clearly discussing user interface alone. They seem to be treated as synonymous but aren't, and are a very strong sign that the person using them isn't good at UI because UI is substantially about clarity (at its core), or just none too bright and willing absorb buzzwords without understanding them. "The user experience (UX or UE) is how a user interacts with and experiences a pro…

I would be happy to see 'UX' go and good old 'usability' make a comeback. Sometimes UX seems to be code for switching focus away from usability and over to styling.

'UX' is just too broad to be a useful term. You can't perfect every aspect of the user experience at the same time, you need to focus on one thing at a time, and for that you need more focused words.

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#155

Post by inkyoto »

edrxty wrote: post #8

Strong disagree on "technical debt" Rather, the entire world is built on it and there's some level of acceptance required, but we definitely need a shorthand phrase for "we're doing something stupid that will save us time now and make us hate ourselves a year from now" Edit: thinking on it, also "devops". It's really job title for "sysadmin but paid and owned by the software department to keep ITs fingers out of ever…

> … "devops". It's really job title for "sysadmin …

Uhm, that what it has become, but not what it ought to be. I define the «DevOps» as an experienced software engineer with the black belt in networking and system administration. It almost never works the other way round, though, and ex-sysadmins who choose to transition into a DevOps role as an exit path from editing configs in vi, remain as cantankerous and unhelpful as ever before. From my own anecdotal and likely highly biased experience, I have encountered exactly one positive example of the reverse transition.

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#156

Post by mattarm »

TT-392 wrote: post #96

Object-Oriented Programming: "Luckily the industry doesn’t really use this term any more" Wait really? What world are they living in? Am I just out of touch or something?

OOP became a marketing term, but no longer sells designs, languages, etc. OOP alone used to be hot. Now it is either just assumed, or eschewed, or considered ambiguous.

We’re getting there with FP, too. OOP…which kind? FP…which kind?

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#157

Post by lloydatkinson »

inkyoto wrote: post #155
edrxty wrote: post #8

Strong disagree on "technical debt" Rather, the entire world is built on it and there's some level of acceptance required, but we definitely need a shorthand phrase for "we're doing something stupid that will save us time now and make us hate ourselves a year from now" Edit: thinking on it, also "devops". It's really job title for "sysadmin but paid and owned by the software department to keep ITs fingers out of ever…

> … "devops". It's really job title for "sysadmin … Uhm, that what it has become, but not what it ought to be. I define the «DevOps» as an experienced software engineer with the black belt in networking and system administration. It almost never works the other way round, though, and ex-sysadmins who choose to transition into a DevOps role as an exit path from editing configs in vi, remain as cantankerous and unhelpf…

I’ve also found a lot of devops to be generally unhelpful and adversarial as well. They seem to forget the developer part of the job title and don’t help the developers deliver value to the customer. Instead some devops teams just break things unannounced, make sweeping changes that leave everyone unhappy, require unnecessary extra steps for simple procedures, and remain passive or negative.

I call those teams “developer obstructions” or DevObs for short.

Really this probably highlights the problem of having devops be it’s own role instead of a responsibility of a software team.

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#158

Post by olalonde »

ratww wrote: post #147
olalonde wrote: post #140

> Luckily the industry doesn’t really use this term [OOP] any more so we can ignore the changed meaning. OOP is still a widely used term today. > It used to mean “not waterfall” and now means “waterfall with a status meeting every day and an internal demo every two weeks”. That doesn't sound waterfall-y at all. > If you can hire a “DevOps engineer” to fulfil a specific role on a software team then we have all lost at…

> That doesn't sound waterfall-y at all. Sounds like an iterative approach to me. I think you missed the crux of the issue: in a lot of companies, Agile is definitely waterfall-ish, with a lot of pre-planning, design working a few sprints in advance, a lot of "getting it perfect" during PR reviews, no follow-up, no evaluating the work midway, no admitting failure and reverting it before finished, etc. > Having roles…

> I think you also missed the problem on this one. If you have "roles for operations" that doesn't involve development, it's not a devops role, it's just an operations role. Sure you can have devops in the mix, but someone doing operations exclusively isn't devops.

It seems we both agree that having a DevOps engineer is not incompatible with DevOps?

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#159

Post by ratww »

olalonde wrote: post #158
ratww wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That doesn't sound waterfall-y at all. Sounds like an iterative approach to me. I think you missed the crux of the issue: in a lot of companies, Agile is definitely waterfall-ish, with a lot of pre-planning, design working a few sprints in advance, a lot of "getting it perfect" during PR reviews, no follow-up, no evaluating the work midway, no admitting failure and reverting it before finished, etc. > Having roles…

> I think you also missed the problem on this one. If you have "roles for operations" that doesn't involve development, it's not a devops role, it's just an operations role. Sure you can have devops in the mix, but someone doing operations exclusively isn't devops. It seems we both agree that having a DevOps engineer is not incompatible with DevOps?

We don't. "Operations" is not a synonym "DevOps".

Devops does involve operations, but is not exclusively that.

Having an Operations person work together with developers doesn't automatically make the Ops engineer into a DevOps engineer. Just as it wouldn't make the non-operations developers into DevOps engineers.

Maybe the better term would be "Operations Engineer for multi-disciplinary Team". Not DevOps.

EDIT: It was previously written "It seems we both agree that having a Ops engineer is not incompatible with DevOps?"

Re: Phrases in computing that might need retiring

#160

Post by inkyoto »

lloydatkinson wrote: post #157
inkyoto wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> … "devops". It's really job title for "sysadmin … Uhm, that what it has become, but not what it ought to be. I define the «DevOps» as an experienced software engineer with the black belt in networking and system administration. It almost never works the other way round, though, and ex-sysadmins who choose to transition into a DevOps role as an exit path from editing configs in vi, remain as cantankerous and unhelpf…

I’ve also found a lot of devops to be generally unhelpful and adversarial as well. They seem to forget the developer part of the job title and don’t help the developers deliver value to the customer. Instead some devops teams just break things unannounced, make sweeping changes that leave everyone unhappy, require unnecessary extra steps for simple procedures, and remain passive or negative. I call those teams “devel…

That resonates with my experience at large as well, which I find to be unfortunate.

I actually have come across a number of highly knowledgeable and talented sysadmins along the way, and I truly wanted the Dev part of DevOps to work and invested a lot of personal effort into trying to make it work although in vain each and every time.

Such individuals also have a tendency to create new, deeply entrenched silos that continue on to keep developers in shackles.

> I call those teams “developer obstructions” or DevObs for short.

With your permission, I will ecstatically add the new term into my daily professional vocabulary.

Post reply on HN