2014-04-26 10:52:28 -04:00
|
|
|
Comparatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-04-26 11:54:15 -04:00
|
|
|
Finally, note that many words in hacker jargon have to be understood as
|
|
|
|
|
members of sets of comparatives. This is especially true of the adjectives
|
|
|
|
|
and nouns used to describe the beauty and functional quality of code. Here
|
|
|
|
|
is an approximately correct spectrum: monstrosity brain-damage screw bug
|
|
|
|
|
lose misfeature crock kluge hack win feature elegance perfection The last is
|
|
|
|
|
spoken of as a mythical absolute, approximated but never actually attained.
|
|
|
|
|
Another similar scale is used for describing the reliability of software:
|
|
|
|
|
broken flaky dodgy fragile brittle solid robust bulletproof armor-plated
|
|
|
|
|
Note, however, that dodgy is primarily Commonwealth Hackish (it is rare in
|
|
|
|
|
the U.S., where squirrelly may be more common) and may change places with
|
|
|
|
|
flaky for some speakers. Coinages for describing lossage seem to call forth
|
|
|
|
|
the very finest in hackish linguistic inventiveness; it has been truly said
|
|
|
|
|
that hackers have even more words for equipment failures than Yiddish has
|
|
|
|
|
for obnoxious people. Prev Up Next Anthropomorphization Home Chapter5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
