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.