Re: Functionality

Subject: Re: Functionality
From: "Susan Self @ignite" <susan -at- ALSYS -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 11:43:37 PDT

Bill Burns wrote:

>Lisa Higgins writes:


>A bit reductive. Function is a *thing* (loosely speaking).
>Functionality is a quality of the thing *function*. Quite a difference.

No one seems to have noticed the fact that products for software
developers often contain many "functions" that can be called,
such as runtime routines. A product with such functions as well as other
features therefore has many capabilities. I think that the word
"functionality" may have evolved to refer to this collection of
functions and features. The words "functions," "features," and
"capabilities" don't seem to have the same sense of bundling it all
into a toolkit or single entity in the way the word "functionality"
does. Marketing people therefore love the word "functionality" and
often seem to be the folks driving the coinage of such words.

Susan Self
susan -at- thomsoft -dot- com

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: Importing .MIF files into help?
Next by Author: Re: Indexing E. documents
Previous by Thread: Re: Functionality
Next by Thread: Re: Functionality

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

Sponsored Ads