Re[2]: Killer Language

Subject: Re[2]: Killer Language
From: Dan Roberts <Dan_Roberts -at- IBI -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 13:57:14 EDT

Well, from what I've learned in my limited experience, these sorts of
language concerns are generally geared for NLS/translation issues -
making the source language as clean and simple as possible, so as not
to introduce needless complications into the translation process. For
example, I remember a big push in IBM in the late 80s for NLS concerns
- and 'invalid' became 'not valid' and 'terminate' became 'end," and
someone that I worked with mentioned AS/400 screens that could
magically appear if we said they 'appear."

Also, are you sure that 'abort, execute, kill' are globally used? Or
might other languages used other terms? I honestly have no idea, and
would be curious myself.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Killer Language
Author: "Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com> at tcpgate
Date: 11/11/96 1:24 PM


To answer Patricia Funston, who said...

>>the original exchange was about =
>>using terms such as abort, execute, and kill in computer documentation. =

So, now I have to ask--because I'm really curious about this one--
who's the target audience? Because *not* using these terms that are
so firmly established in software-industry parlance would never have
occurred to me. What made *you* (those of you who have considered
purging "violent" terms from documentation) think of it?


Sue Gallagher


Previous by Author: Jobs in Western Michigan
Next by Author: Re[2]: Documenting a Programming Language. WAS:Syntax Diagra
Previous by Thread: Re: Killer Language
Next by Thread: Re: Killer Language -Reply


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads