Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Andrew Sullivan Subject: Language question (was: backup hard drive) References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> Reply-To: phlogiston@youknowwhattodo.canada.com User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 19 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 18:32:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.43.66.56 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rogers.com X-Trace: news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com 1023474758 24.43.66.56 (Fri, 07 Jun 2002 14:32:38 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 14:32:38 EDT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!teleglobe.net!teleglobe.net!66.185.86.143.MISMATCH!news03.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com!news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com.POSTED!12dc6cf53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109338 On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:34:35 -0500, in alt.folklore.computers (message ), Larry__Weiss wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how much Gates really knows about how > Unix systems are architected. This is not an attack, or even a Language Rant (to which I have been known to be prone). But why do computer people (I'm including myself) always talk about architecture, rather than design? I mean, I don't think even architects ever say "architected" or "to architect". Yet we talk that way. Are we just afraid that we never build anything real, and so we have to make a big deal out of building stuff? --- Andrew "rearchitected" Sullivan | Reply-To borked In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant- garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism. --Brad Holland ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) Date: 07 Jun 2002 22:40:54 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6u8z5qesa1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 1023482454 423 10.0.3.2 (7 Jun 2002 20:40:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2002 20:40:54 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109424 Andrew Sullivan writes: > known to be prone). But why do computer people (I'm including myself) > always talk about architecture, rather than design? We use both, because we distinguish between architecture and design. Architecture is applied to an general/abstract-level design, such as an instruction set, or IO design. Design is applied to an specific-level design, such an one specific processor model implementing an instruction set, or an particular IO device implementing the general design. 80x86 is an architecture. 80486DX is an design. PDP-10 is an architecture. KA-10 is an design. IBM 360 is an architecture. 360/55 is an design. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Hacker, Unix Guru, El Eng HTL/BSc, Sysadmin, Archer, Roleplayer - Make your code truely free: put it into the public domain ###### From: Tom Gough Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question Date: 8 Jun 2002 02:48:39 GMT Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-3055.tiger.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk 1023504519 1005 62.136.219.239 (8 Jun 2002 02:48:39 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jun 2002 02:48:39 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@theplanet.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!diablo.theplanet.net!news.theplanet.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109459 In article , davehinz@spamcop.net wrote: > Someone who looks an awful lot like Andrew Sullivan wrote: > >> This is not an attack, or even a Language Rant (to which I have been >> known to be prone). But why do computer people (I'm including myself) >> always talk about architecture, rather than design? > > Two distinct things, as I see it. The architect describes what to do; > the overall strategy, how things interact. The designer figures out how > to make the strategy work. > >> I mean, I don't >> think even architects ever say "architected" or "to architect". Yet we >> talk that way. Are we just afraid that we never build anything real, >> and so we have to make a big deal out of building stuff? > > Well, I designed and built my own house; every nail, every board. I > wouldn't describe myself as an architect in the housebuilding sense, yet > my title here says I'm a architect (of computer-ish things). > > I've seen some of the folks in the brick&mortar architecture trades > get downright hostile about IT folks using that term, and even about > them (well, us) using the term "Engineer", on the theory that IT is an > art not a science, or some such thing. Seems to me, it's just a matter > of words evolving over time; 200 years ago, an "electrical engineer" > didn't exist either. > > Dave "I prefer strategery to architecture anyways..." Hinz > IT is both an art and a science. Often, artists call it science, and scientists art. It's a funny old game. BTW Anyone see the England match? We were, for once, superb in defence! -- http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) Date: 07 Jun 02 14:15:42 -0800 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: <2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com> References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-190.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!HSNX.atgi.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!151.164.30.35!cyclone.swbell.net!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109437 In article ajs@ringer.phlogiston.dyndns.org (Andrew Sullivan) writes: >On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:34:35 -0500, in alt.folklore.computers (message >), >Larry__Weiss wrote: > >> I'm trying to figure out how much Gates really knows about how >> Unix systems are architected. > >This is not an attack, or even a Language Rant (to which I have been >known to be prone). But why do computer people (I'm including myself) >always talk about architecture, rather than design? I mean, I don't >think even architects ever say "architected" or "to architect". Yet >we talk that way. Are we just afraid that we never build anything >real, and so we have to make a big deal out of building stuff? IMHO it's just pomposity. "Architected" has more syllables than "designed", so it's superior, right? Also, it follows the modern obsession with forcing a noun into service as a verb, even though a perfectly good verb exists. It's all just bafflegab. Yes, I know this is a Language Rant. But making a big deal out of building stuff is just one more attempt to impress others (or dare I say ourselves) when we really don't have that much to offer, and that's also why so many abuses of our language occur. I design my programs, I don't "architect" them. I enter them into the computer, I don't "input" them. And they generate reports, they don't "output" them. I am confident in my own abilities, and have no desire to deceive others. Thus I need not - and will not - resort to anything other than plain English to describe my activities. I am suspicious of anyone who cannot or will not do likewise. Bafflegab such as "architected" sets off my bullshit detectors, and in my mind damages the credibility of whoever uses it. -- cgibbs@sky.bus.com (Charlie Gibbs) Remove the first period after the "at" sign to reply. I don't read top-posted messages. If you want me to see your reply, appropriately trim the quoted text and put your reply below it. ###### From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 02 08:52:23 GMT Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> <2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVaIeyB5J6yVJ6nm4F6RLa6StAm8wffPW+nt+DXvM8LmYct1LYZJYVaS X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Jun 2002 12:27:12 GMT X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!207-172-102-53 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109468 In article <2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com>, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: >In article > >ajs@ringer.phlogiston.dyndns.org (Andrew Sullivan) writes: > >>On Thu, 06 Jun 2002 08:34:35 -0500, in alt.folklore.computers (message >>), >>Larry__Weiss wrote: >> >>> I'm trying to figure out how much Gates really knows about how >>> Unix systems are architected. >> >>This is not an attack, or even a Language Rant (to which I have been >>known to be prone). But why do computer people (I'm including myself) >>always talk about architecture, rather than design? I mean, I don't >>think even architects ever say "architected" or "to architect". Yet >>we talk that way. Are we just afraid that we never build anything >>real, and so we have to make a big deal out of building stuff? > >IMHO it's just pomposity. "Architected" has more syllables than >"designed", so it's superior, right? Also, it follows the modern >obsession with forcing a noun into service as a verb, even though >a perfectly good verb exists. It's all just bafflegab. You do have a way with words, Charlie. > >Yes, I know this is a Language Rant. But making a big deal out >of building stuff is just one more attempt to impress others (or >dare I say ourselves) when we really don't have that much to offer, >and that's also why so many abuses of our language occur. > >I design my programs, I don't "architect" them. I enter them into >the computer, I don't "input" them. And they generate reports, >they don't "output" them. I am confident in my own abilities, and >have no desire to deceive others. Thus I need not - and will not - >resort to anything other than plain English to describe my activities. >I am suspicious of anyone who cannot or will not do likewise. >Bafflegab such as "architected" sets off my bullshit detectors, >and in my mind damages the credibility of whoever uses it. I typed in a paper that JMF and CDO wrote. They called it an architecture spec. That paper was to be used as input for design and functional specs that were specific to hard/software platforms. (This use of the word is not to be confused with its use in CPU architecture.) I think JMF's definition of architecture spec is that no code can be written based on it. If it can, then it's a design spec. But then, DEC also called us engineers and we sure didn't feel like one. So I don't know how much of the naming convention was poofery and how much was a good use of the word. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) Date: 7 Jun 2002 21:21:12 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 5 Message-ID: References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> <6u8z5qesa1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet10 X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1023484872 12344 134.117.136.30 (7 Jun 2002 21:21:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2002 21:21:12 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@freenet10.carleton.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109479 Neil Franklin (neil@franklin.ch.remove) writes: ... > IBM 360 is an architecture. 360/55 is an design. Never heard of it - got any details? ###### From: "Rupert Pigott" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 02:20:16 +0000 (UTC) Organization: BT Openworld Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> <2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: host213-122-203-19.in-addr.btopenworld.com X-Trace: helle.btinternet.com 1023502816 4332 213.122.203.19 (8 Jun 2002 02:20:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 02:20:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!193.190.198.17.MISMATCH!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!btnet-peer!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109485 "Charlie Gibbs" wrote in message news:2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com... [SNIP] > a perfectly good verb exists. It's all just bafflegab. Bafflegab. That's a keeper :) [SNIP] > I design my programs, I don't "architect" them. I enter them into > the computer, I don't "input" them. And they generate reports, > they don't "output" them. I am confident in my own abilities, and I think that most of my code blends pomposity with humility. The code I write usually uses Standard Input and Standard Output. :P Cheers, Rupert ###### From: aes Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:30:19 -0700 Organization: Stanford University Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> <2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: siegman-pbdsl1.stanford.edu Mail-Copies-To: poster User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.stanford.edu!siegman Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109505 In article <2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com>, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: > >But why do computer people (I'm including myself) > >always talk about architecture, rather than design? I suppose one reason is because "design", whether we're talking computer programs or buildings, could be interpreted to some extent as referring to the external design of the program or the building (plus maybe the floor plan), while an architect in either case develops, and more important understands, the detailed structure of the internal elements, "under the skin", that make the design possible. Lots of people "design" their dream homes, then turn them over to an architect to draw up the detailed plans that make them realistic. And as I user I can understand the design of a computer program, in the sense of understanding what it's designed to do, without understanding the underlying architecture of the coding. Not trying to push this viewpoint hard, just offering one reason for using the term. ###### Message-ID: <3D0180C5.8C079DA8@earthlink.net> From: Jim Esler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> <2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 13 Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:57:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.49.182.11 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 1023508659 63.49.182.11 (Fri, 07 Jun 2002 20:57:39 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 20:57:39 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net.POSTED!d51e9025!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109443 Rupert Pigott wrote: > > "Charlie Gibbs" wrote in message > news:2091.923T2115T8555100@sky.bus.com... > [SNIP] > > a perfectly good verb exists. It's all just bafflegab. > > Bafflegab. That's a keeper :) Yep. Two verbs stuck together and forced into service as a noun, when a perfectly good noun exists. -- Jim Esler ###### Reply-To: "Tony Ingenoso" From: "Tony Ingenoso" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) Lines: 10 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.56.243.20 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr16.news.prodigy.com 1024321567 ST000 65.56.243.20 (Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:46:07 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 09:46:07 EDT Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: [[PGW^CD[ZWYBQTX]ZHDM^\BZJ]T@FLNLBWLOOAFBATBTSUBYFWEAE[YJLYPIWKHTFCMZKVMB^[Z^DOBRVVMOSPFHNSYXVDIE@X\BUC@GTSX@DL^GKFFHQCCE\G[JJBMYDYIJCZM@AY]GNGPJD]YNNW\GSX^GSCKHA[]@CCB\[@LATPD\L@J\\PF]VR[QPJN Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 13:46:07 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!eusc.inter.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr16.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!acb6a08a!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:109892 Without architecture everyone would be trying to pound square pegs into round holes, and make quite difficult any notions of compatibility in later revisions(software) or models in the same series(hardware). "Andrew Sullivan" wrote in message news:a%6M8.213798$ah_.19659@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com... > > ...why do computer people (I'm including myself) > always talk about architecture, rather than design? ###### From: jata@jata-mj.net (Julian Thomas) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Language question (was: backup hard drive) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 17:58:36 -0400 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <3d276823$4$wg$mr2ice@news.fltg.net> References: <5jglca.e72.ln@teabag.cbhnet> <6u8z5qesa1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> X-Newsreader: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v2.30a/30 X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 19 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.it.ip-plus.net!news.it.ip-plus.net!news.it.colt.net!peernews2.colt.net!news0.de.colt.net!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!feed.textport.net!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:111651 In <6u8z5qesa1.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch>, on 06/07/02 at 10:40 PM, Neil Franklin said: >IBM 360 is an architecture. 360/55 is an design. No such machine. 360/50 or 370/155 - yes. -- Julian Thomas: jt . jt-mj @ net http://jt-mj.net remove letter a for email (or switch . and @) In the beautiful Finger Lakes Wine Country of New York State! Boardmember of POSSI.org - Phoenix OS/2 Society, Inc http://www.possi.org -- -- 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.