Comments on: “Performant” is not a word http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/ Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:43:20 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Michael http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85782 Michael Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:37:33 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85782 BTW, don't dis the English language. It's ability to change is a beautiful thing. Reference England after the year 1066. It didn't disappear, but only got stronger. Compare the number of slyables needed to express somthing in English vice other languages. BTW, don’t dis the English language. It’s ability to change is a beautiful thing. Reference England after the year 1066. It didn’t disappear, but only got stronger. Compare the number of slyables needed to express somthing in English vice other languages.

]]> By: Michael http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85781 Michael Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:33:49 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85781 Although I haven't read all the comments, the most accurate meaning of "performant" is something whose actions are in accordance with specs. An actor who is performing according to the predefined script is a performant. The computer module that performs according to specs is a performant. I like it! Although I haven’t read all the comments, the most accurate meaning of “performant” is something whose actions are in accordance with specs. An actor who is performing according to the predefined script is a performant. The computer module that performs according to specs is a performant. I like it!

]]> By: Tim Steele Manson http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85737 Tim Steele Manson Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:54:55 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85737 "Dave C" That's "ironical", chum. “Dave C”

That’s “ironical”, chum.

]]> By: moron http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85702 moron Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:11:32 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85702 Face it, you americans just need more words. Don't put that off! :D Face it, you americans just need more words. Don’t put that off! :D

]]> By: Dave C http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85659 Dave C Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:04:07 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85659 @Tim Steele Manson: "half-assed" ? How ironic. @Tim Steele Manson:

“half-assed” ?

How ironic.

]]> By: Tim Steele Manson http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85623 Tim Steele Manson Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:01:52 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85623 I can say I disagree strongly with Chiller And F. Scott Fitzgerald's posts. While most can agree that the English language is fluid, can't we aspire to something more noble than to just give into widespread banal misuse of terms that constitute the backbone of our native (if not wonderful) language? Do you all blindly accept "laxadasical" to be a natural evolution of "lackadasical", "axe" from "ask", or "in regards to" from "with regard to"? These are just a few of the countless terms idioms and articles that are being forced upon us because large majority of the speakers/writers of the English lexicon are inherently lazy. I choose to run the other way up this slippery slope -- castigating the use of "performant", and other half-assed attacks on our culture, and doing my part to resist the slow descent into idiocracy. You would do well to do same. I also find it a bit "ironical" that the strongest arguments for accepting performant into English is that is it a word in French, Romanian, and other languages!!!! Perhaps one of the techno-geek posters out there can tell me why that isn't a circular argument? I can say I disagree strongly with Chiller And F. Scott Fitzgerald’s posts. While most can agree that the English language is fluid, can’t we aspire to something more noble than to just give into widespread banal misuse of terms that constitute the backbone of our native (if not wonderful) language? Do you all blindly accept “laxadasical” to be a natural evolution of “lackadasical”, “axe” from “ask”, or “in regards to” from “with regard to”? These are just a few of the countless terms idioms and articles that are being forced upon us because large majority of the speakers/writers of the English lexicon are inherently lazy. I choose to run the other way up this slippery slope — castigating the use of “performant”, and other half-assed attacks on our culture, and doing my part to resist the slow descent into idiocracy. You would do well to do same.

I also find it a bit “ironical” that the strongest arguments for accepting performant into English is that is it a word in French, Romanian, and other languages!!!! Perhaps one of the techno-geek posters out there can tell me why that isn’t a circular argument?

]]> By: Mark http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85622 Mark Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:15:07 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85622 Performant as a word isn't performant. There. What have I said? Nothing!!! Because the term 'performant' is an obfuscation uttered by techno-dorks who have no appreciation for English! I bet "Chill out" and "John Fitzgerald Page" (thanks for including the middle name there, John) use the word "irregardless" too. Performant as a word isn’t performant.

There. What have I said? Nothing!!! Because the term ‘performant’ is an obfuscation uttered by techno-dorks who have no appreciation for English!

I bet “Chill out” and “John Fitzgerald Page” (thanks for including the middle name there, John) use the word “irregardless” too.

]]> By: John Fitzgerald Page http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85609 John Fitzgerald Page Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:26:16 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85609 Second what "Chill out" said. Language is fluid, and there is no authoritarian "gatekeeper" of the English language. If a word enters popular use and gradually people come to understand its intended definition, then it for all intents and purposes is a part of the language. Don't have a heart attack because it's not in the dictionary -- as has been said, 50 years ago a number of commonplace words in use today weren't in there either. Second what “Chill out” said. Language is fluid, and there is no authoritarian “gatekeeper” of the English language. If a word enters popular use and gradually people come to understand its intended definition, then it for all intents and purposes is a part of the language.

Don’t have a heart attack because it’s not in the dictionary — as has been said, 50 years ago a number of commonplace words in use today weren’t in there either.

]]> By: Chill out http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85579 Chill out Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:47:52 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85579 Actually, I think most of you are being rather silly. This is how words enter a language: through popular usage. Not through some prescriptive set of opinions of what is and isn't word. If you try adopting a descriptivist attitude about language, you may find it a lot more interesting. The process of neologisms entering a language's popular vocabulary should be cool, not tragic. I bet nearly all of you are using words in your postings that your past counterparts (even 50 to 100 years ago) would have complained about with equal vigour. Consider that for a moment. Actually, I think most of you are being rather silly. This is how words enter a language: through popular usage. Not through some prescriptive set of opinions of what is and isn’t word. If you try adopting a descriptivist attitude about language, you may find it a lot more interesting. The process of neologisms entering a language’s popular vocabulary should be cool, not tragic.

I bet nearly all of you are using words in your postings that your past counterparts (even 50 to 100 years ago) would have complained about with equal vigour. Consider that for a moment.

]]> By: Stephen http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/comment-page-2/#comment-85561 Stephen Wed, 27 May 2009 05:01:43 +0000 http://boulter.com/blog/2004/08/19/performant-is-not-a-word/#comment-85561 I'm deeply, deeply against the term. It's next to useless for quoting since it only makes sense in context. It's incredibly vague given how many measurements have been used for the performance of computer systems. A system is equally "more performant" if it can render more frames per second in Doom than a competitor as it would be if it uses less electricity. It's a word that can't stand on its own. Spelunker will disagree but his example: “The system is <i>less performant</i> during times of high stress, as its (too? -S) efficient design leaves little to no margin of available processing capability.” Is crying out for the word "slower." It's a simpler word and if you need to hide behind complicated words in reports that may indicate you don't believe your content stands up for itself. Don't worry about simpler language and using one word instead of two, no one will mind. I’m deeply, deeply against the term. It’s next to useless for quoting since it only makes sense in context. It’s incredibly vague given how many measurements have been used for the performance of computer systems. A system is equally “more performant” if it can render more frames per second in Doom than a competitor as it would be if it uses less electricity. It’s a word that can’t stand on its own.

Spelunker will disagree but his example:

“The system is less performant during times of high stress, as its (too? -S) efficient design leaves little to no margin of available processing capability.”

Is crying out for the word “slower.” It’s a simpler word and if you need to hide behind complicated words in reports that may indicate you don’t believe your content stands up for itself. Don’t worry about simpler language and using one word instead of two, no one will mind.

]]>