Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: GROK THIS! Message-ID: <9058@smoke.BRL.MIL> Date: 4 Dec 88 06:03:58 GMT References: <0XZeQod38k-0MSz0V7@andrew.cmu.edu> <9046@smoke.BRL.MIL> <575@sactoh0.UUCP> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB)) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 18 In article <575@sactoh0.UUCP> bfbreedl@sactoh0.UUCP (Bob F. Breedlove) writes: >It's not the "cute names" so much that bothers me, it's terms like >"grok" used in messages and other obscure references that inhibit >understanding that drive ME nuts! When I'm working with a computer >in a business application, I want a clear understanding of what a >message -- especially an error message -- means! I don't want to >have to refer to my vintage sci-fi collection or dictionary of >american slang or old hippie friends to have to determine what just >happened. I lost track of the original reference, but I thought that the term came up in the context of an advisory message ("now trying to see if the compiler groks void") during software installation, not end-use. You mean to tell me that there is a qualified system manager who doesn't grok "grok"? The verb is in common techie use, I thought. Your point about jargon obscuring understanding is well taken, though. It's something designers and implementors should be more aware of.