Re: Functionality

Subject: Re: Functionality
From: "Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- EXPERSOFT -dot- COM>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 13:30:39 -0700

Paul Dixon wrote:
>My position stands. I don't know about this. I know it's in Webster's
>10th. Still, it seems like something that evolved into the language, but I
>feel that it only muddies the language, and that we should still try to use
>function, functions, or capability. Functionality--Webster's or not--is
>technospeak.
> ----------

Functionality...
Walks like a word, quacks like a word... Hmmm...

If we refuse to accept everything that "evolved into the
language", we'd be stuck with...

OOooooo Ahhhh Ugg Brrrr mumumumumu

Hey! That'd make explaining distributed object computing a *whole*
lot easier! ;-)

Sue Gallagher
sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com
-- The _Guide_ is definitive.
Reality is frequently inaccurate.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Post Message: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
Get Commands: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "help" in body.
Unsubscribe: LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU with "signoff TECHWR-L"
Listowner: ejray -at- ionet -dot- net


Previous by Author: Re: Seek Index Training - SF Bay Area
Next by Author: Re: Including Screen Captures
Previous by Thread: Re: Functionality
Next by Thread: Re: Functionality


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads