On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Fredrik Johansson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 9:34:13 AM UTC+2, Erik Bray wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:11 AM, William Stein <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Kwankyu Lee <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Which one is correct? >> >> >> >> (1) "This is based on code by A and B" >> >> (2) "This is based on codes by A and B" >> >> (3) "This is based on the codes by A and B" >> >> >> >> I am just curious. I am not a native English speaker. >> > >> > In American, (1) is correct. >> > >> > I just did Google searches for the exact string "This is based on the >> > codes by" and "This is based on codes by" and it says "No results >> > found" in both cases, so (2) and (3) are definitely wrong in English. >> >> I'm surprised no results came up. Something I noticed quickly when I >> first started working with astronomers and astrophysicists was that >> it's not uncommon for researchers in those fields to refer to their >> software as "codes". I usually don't say anything directly to them >> because I don't want to be a pedantic jerk. But it always just struck >> me as odd, and I've complained about it a few times in other contexts. >> It doesn't help that many researchers don't have strong programming >> backgrounds and see even open source software as something of a black >> box--and to me calling it "codes" only makes it worse. As if it's a >> pile of cryptic runes to be decoded. But it's just a linguistic >> oddity I guess :) > > > Every field has its own jargon, and countable "code" is simply established > lingo in parts of the scientific computing community, appearing in tens of > thousands of papers. It usually has a more narrow meaning: "a code" is a > polished software package for a specific numerical or scientific task ("a > code for plasma simulation", "a comparison of finite element codes"), not an > arbitrary sampling of source code. "Codes" is certainly incorrect in any > other context, but I think "correcting" the domain-specific usage is overly > pedantic. "Algebra" to most people is something uncountable, but theoretical > mathematicians are perfectly fine with "algebras"...
I agree that it's jargon and not worth fighting. There's nothing "wrong" about it--there can't possibly be. It just strikes me as odd, and does in my mind have a negative connotation, though it doesn't for anyone actually working in those fields so who cares. "Algebras" struck me as odd too before I ever actually learned advanced algebra :) Perhaps one slight difference there is that it actually is a technical term with a precise definition (in the sense of an algebra over a field). Where as "a code" in this sense is more of a cultural jargon. I would also argue that the level of "polish" of physical "codes" varies widely, though they do usually have a narrow usage. Anyways sorry for continuing this off-topic thread--I just find it interesting and amusing :) Erik -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
