On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 09:13 +0000, Lennart Augustsson wrote: > When accurate names for Haskell concepts already exist we should use > them (as we have tried in the past). There has been too much > invention of misleading terminology in computing already.
There are two possible cases (this applies to any branch of mathematics, or mathematical discipline): a) Use existing words, and give them new meanings. Then you're using a word that already means something else. Best example: series vs. sequence in calculus. b) Invent a new word (probably based on Latin or Greek roots). Then you're using incomprehensible and frightening technical jargon. Best example: catamorphism (apparently). So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. My solution: stop caring what people think. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
