Re: On folders vs. directories and history [was: how to compare...]
Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> writes:
>> Surely 'directory' is also just a more or
>> less apt metaphor
>
> You missed the point: directory is not a metaphor at all, it is a
> precise term for what is actually being talked about.
I beg to differ. I think you are confusing the precise definition of
something with the label used to refer to it. When the transistor was
invented, so was a new word to describe it. When this particular
concept of how to organise data on a computer, about which we are
talking, was invented, the existing analog term 'directory' was chosen
(and not, say, 'catalogue'). Because the term already existed, using it
to refer to something else is by definition metaphorical.
>> Regarding Tomas' assertion, I'm not sure I buy into the argument
>> regarding dumbing-down. I am presume it does go on, but I don't really
>> think that one is stepping on to Big Tech's slippery slope to stupidity
>> by calling a 'directory' a 'folder' any more one would be by calling a
>> pointing device a 'mouse' despite its rather limited resemblance to the
>> actual rodent.
>
> We are not saying that using the word is by itself dumbing down. But the
> fact is that the people who are dumbing down are the same as people who
> are using the metaphoric word instead of the precise one.
As I said, I think you are creating a false dichotomy between
'metaphorical' and 'precise'. Possible antonyms would be 'literal' and
'imprecise', respectively.
Regarding usage, I think that the horse has bolted. The people using
'folder' are probably in the majority now, in particular if we think of
all those who never end up on the command line. So if someone wants to
sell me snake oil, he or she will definitely need some more dazzling
jargon than 'folder'.
--
This signature is currently under constuction.
Reply to: