Re: Jargon [<- Re: On the "Darwinian Theory of Legal Obfuscation"]

["Peter J. Wasilko, Esq." <address@hidden>]

>  We *need* words to describe 
> these concepts; if not these words, than which ones?  It also obviously wouldn't be 
> efficient to do a string-replace in every conversation of the words with sentences or 
> paragraphs that explain them to the uninitiated.

I think the prefered solution is to employ user modeling and let peopple choose which notation system works best for them. Then you can serve up a circumlocution to an end user *and* tell him or her what the correct "term of art" is.

There is no reason why a block of code can't be mapped to more than one surface structure, S-expressions for Scheme folks, C type definitions for others, and semi-verbose English for End Users just getting their feet wet with high level application scripting.

Warmest Regards,

Peter



_________________________________________________________________

Peter J. Wasilko, Esq.
     J.D., LL.M.               

Executive Director, The Institute for End User Computing, Inc.

Visit us on the web at: http://www.ieuc.org

_________________________________________________________________

Its time to abandon brittle architectures with poorly factored
interfaces, gratuitous complexity, and kludged designs dominated
by sacrifices on the altar of backwards compatibility.

Such artifacts are vulnerable to cyber-attack, weigh down the
economy costing trillions of dollars in lost productivity, and
suffer from an impoverished conceptual model that lacks the
integration and elegance needed to empower end users to
get the most from advanced applications in the future.

_________________________________________________________________
The Institute for End User Computing --- Pursuing Secure, Simple, 
   Supple, & Sophisticated Systems to Unlock Our Human Potential
_________________________________________________________________

* The Institute is incorporated under New York State's
   Not-For-Profit Corporation Law