From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Who uses a library, user code or client code?
Date:
Message-ID: <PHJQf.156$y56.136@fe08.lga>
I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually a
better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need /something/
besides "user" for library using code.
kt
From: Coby Beck
Subject: Re: Who uses a library, user code or client code?
Date:
Message-ID: <G%JQf.18704$dg.4791@clgrps13>
"Ken Tilton" <·········@gmail.com> wrote in message
······················@fe08.lga...
>I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user" tasks,
>then noticed I already used "user" internally for something completely
>different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually a better word
>for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need /something/ besides "user"
>for library using code.
How about "library-user"?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
> tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
> completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually
> a better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need
> /something/ besides "user" for library using code.
Yes, client, like client/server.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the unlikely event that this
merchandise should contact antimatter in any form, a catastrophic
explosion will result.
On 2006-03-12 00:12:31 +0000, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
> I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
> tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
> completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually
> a better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need /something/
> besides "user" for library using code.
There are a handful of dichotomies along those lines:
Application - System
Master - Slave
Initiator - Respondent
Criminal - Victim
Consumer - Provider
Enjoyer - Sufferer
A good dictionary of synonyms and antonyms will usualy
save the day :-)
--
JFB
verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
> On 2006-03-12 00:12:31 +0000, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
> > I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
> > tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
> > completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is
> > actually a better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need
> > /something/ besides "user" for library using code.
>
> There are a handful of dichotomies along those lines:
>
> Application - System
> Master - Slave
> Initiator - Respondent
> Criminal - Victim
> Consumer - Provider
> Enjoyer - Sufferer
>
> A good dictionary of synonyms and antonyms will usualy
> save the day :-)
Oh man, referring to the consumer of a library as a victim in the docs
is a really good argument against documentation :-)
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
>
> Oh man, referring to the consumer of a library as a victim in the docs
> is a really good argument against documentation :-)
Hm? Surely the library is the victim, the criminal being the
one using its facilities?
There's also the classic "caller" of library functions...
On 2006-03-12 11:36:53 +0000, ···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F.
Burdick) said:
> verec <·····@mac.com> writes:
>
>> On 2006-03-12 00:12:31 +0000, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
>>> tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
>>> completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is
>>> actually a better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need
>>> /something/ besides "user" for library using code.
>>
>> There are a handful of dichotomies along those lines:
>>
>> Application - System
>> Master - Slave
>> Initiator - Respondent
>> Criminal - Victim
>> Consumer - Provider
>> Enjoyer - Sufferer
>>
>> A good dictionary of synonyms and antonyms will usualy
>> save the day :-)
>
> Oh man, referring to the consumer of a library as a victim in the docs
> is a really good argument against documentation :-)
That was the other way around!
The "victim" is the library provider whose code
is abused by users :-)
--
JFB
verec wrote:
> On 2006-03-12 00:12:31 +0000, Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> said:
>
> > I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
> > tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
> > completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually
> > a better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need /something/
> > besides "user" for library using code.
>
> There are a handful of dichotomies along those lines:
>
> Application - System
> Master - Slave
> Initiator - Respondent
> Criminal - Victim
> Consumer - Provider
> Enjoyer - Sufferer
It occurs to me that this sequence can be summarized by:
Man - Woman
*duck*
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
> tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
> completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually a
> better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need /something/
> besides "user" for library using code.
Do you need the complete generality of words such as client
and server?
What I have in mind is the situation in X11 in which the
server is managing a bit mapped display on behalf of various
clients. ie the number crunching code running on the big
machine in the basement is the client, and the display on
top of your desk is the server. This has two problems, the
terminology is the wrong way round, and a client might, for
example, be a chat program and talk to two servers.
If the designers of X11 had thought a bit harder they could
have realised that the display hardware is fundamental and
this constraint allows them to chose a more specific
terminology. The human user is seeing the picture drawn by
the client via the server. So one could say it is an
artist/gallery architecture, not a client/server
architecture.
This works rather well. The point that a client can connect
to multiple servers becomes the point that an artist can
display in many galleries. Client side refresh becomes
artist storage of pictures. Best of all, it avoids the clash
with traditional notions of clients and servers.
So to get back to the point. Are we talking about Cells?
Instead of user/client could we have protozoa/bacteria, err,
maybe not. My serious point is that it appears childish and
silly to push the Cells metaphor and invent cute biological
names. Then one thinks about it some more and realises that
the overloading of general terms such as client and server
is even less informative than cute terminology that follows
a metaphor.
Alan Crowe
Edinburgh
Scotland
From: Ken Tilton
Subject: Re: Who uses a library, user code or client code?
Date:
Message-ID: <eDZQf.3196$de.1729@fe09.lga>
Alan Crowe wrote:
> Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
>>tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
>>completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually a
>>better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need /something/
>>besides "user" for library using code.
>
>
> Do you need the complete generality of words such as client
> and server?
Actually, I was hoping to discover established nomenclature of which I
was unaware, though Googlebattle tells me it is a tie between user-code
and client-code, so I have gone with "client".
>
> What I have in mind is the situation in X11 in which the
> server is managing a bit mapped display on behalf of various
> clients. ie the number crunching code running on the big
> machine in the basement is the client, and the display on
> top of your desk is the server. This has two problems, the
> terminology is the wrong way round, and a client might, for
> example, be a chat program and talk to two servers.
>
> If the designers of X11 had thought a bit harder they could
> have realised that the display hardware is fundamental and
> this constraint allows them to chose a more specific
> terminology. The human user is seeing the picture drawn by
> the client via the server. So one could say it is an
> artist/gallery architecture, not a client/server
> architecture.
>
> This works rather well. The point that a client can connect
> to multiple servers becomes the point that an artist can
> display in many galleries. Client side refresh becomes
> artist storage of pictures. Best of all, it avoids the clash
> with traditional notions of clients and servers.
>
> So to get back to the point. Are we talking about Cells?
Yes.
> Instead of user/client could we have protozoa/bacteria, err,
> maybe not. My serious point is that it appears childish and
> silly to push the Cells metaphor and invent cute biological
> names. Then one thinks about it some more and realises that
> the overloading of general terms such as client and server
> is even less informative than cute terminology that follows
> a metaphor.
Good, I spent the last day breaking and then fixing "synapses". (prog1
has a lot of nerve returning only the primary return value.) Not sure
how Mr. Burdick is doing with his prototypical "stem cells". :)
ken
--
Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/
"And I will know my song well before I start singing." - Bob Dylan
From: Ariel Badichi
Subject: Re: Who uses a library, user code or client code?
Date:
Message-ID: <44148866@news.bezeqint.net>
Ken Tilton wrote:
> I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
> tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
> completely different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually a
> better word for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need /something/
> besides "user" for library using code.
>
I always thought using the word "client" in this context comes from
seeing the interface as a contract between two entities: the provider
(perhaps the library implementor) and the client (the user of the library).
If you want a word (or rather, a name) for "code that uses a library",
I'd suggest "client-code".
Ken Tilton wrote:
> I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user"
> tasks, then noticed I already used "user" internally for something
> completely different.
"the application"
Ken Tilton <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> I need some nomenclature help here. I was calling something "user" tasks,
> then noticed I already used "user" internally for something completely
> different. Then it occurred to me that "client" is actually a better word
> for code that uses a library. Hope so, i need /something/ besides "user" for
> library using code.
I'd use user and end-user.
--
Didier Verna, ······@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 ······@xemacs.org