Re: c++ stl
On Feb 19, 1:02 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
James Kanze wrote:
Which is, or has been, the case. As Leigh says, language
evolves, and today, the exact meaning of STL depends on who is
talking---in other words, the acronym doesn't have an exact
meaning.
The acronym doesn't have an exact meaning only to those who don't know
what the Standard Template Library is.
The acronym doesn't have an exact meaning for those who wish to
communicate precisely with other people.
In many ways, Humpty Dumpty is right. "When I use a
word, it means just what I choose it to mean." Of course, if I
choose something very different from what other people
understand, communication is rendered significantly more
difficult, but in the end, each speaker chooses his or her
vocabulary according to their personal beliefs. And when the
personal beliefs of a majority of a liguistic group change, the
generally accepted meaning changes.
If we look at this as a semantics issue then the only case that we can
make is that the meaning of an expression can change over time. This is
not the same as claiming that the meaning of an expression should change
over time.
There's no should in it. There's nobody who is making immutable
laws---even in French, the academie fran=E7aise can't stop the
evolution of language. It's just a fact of life.
In this case, just because some people fail to know the
meaning of STL,
They know their meaning, just as well as you know yours.
either due to confusion or because they simply never
learned what it meant,
They might not have learned what it meant, but they know what it
means. At least in the community they're communicating with.
it doesn't give them the right to perpetuate their
mistakes, particularly those based on ignorance that are subsequently
forced to have some sort of meaning by fooling around with backronym
games.
There's no ignorance or mistake about it. No one is required to
know the full etymology of a word in order to be able to use it.
All they have to know is how the person they're communicating
with will understand it.
This particular acronym, STL, which refers to C++'s Standard
Template Library, has a very specific and objective meaning.
Which has changed over time. When I first heard it, it meant a
library developed and maintained by Stepanov, including some
things that aren't in the standard C++ library today. You're
meaning doesn't correspond to the original use. (And wha do you
mean by C++'s Standard Template Library? C++ has a standard
library, much of which is implemented using templates, but
there's no such thing as C++'s standard template library.)
Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to try to make it
some other thing it isn't, no matter how many people fall for
the exact same mistake.
It's not a mistake for people to use a common vocabulary, as
long as they understand one another.
--
James Kanze