Wandering even further off topic, I think that using the verb "to code" is a convention with the effect, intentional or not, of diminishing the importance of programming in a problem-solving situation. Not always, but sometimes.
For example, a graduate student (say, in physics) will "solve" a problem by thinking etc, and maybe produce some"code" to test a hypothesis. Historically, at least, such work was considered one-off, not to be read or run by anyone else. Times change, and "code" seems to have become equivalent to "program". Though I think "coder" sound more like a "junior programmer who is merely performing the tedious work of writing something into a programming language ... something he/.she may not comprehend at all". And there is the usage of "finite element code" yet "elementary function library". Another example of words changing meaning ... "hacker" meant someone who cleverly used programs (or devices) for purposes other than what was initially intended. Often amusing. Now it seems to be used with negative connotation ( hacker == cyber-criminal). For an early collection of clever hacks,. google for HAKMEM RJF On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 2:12:32 AM UTC-7, Erik Bray wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Fredrik Johansson > <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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.
