Use of word subclass
-
@BKBK said in Use of word subclass:
Its more than just wording. Words do matter. The prefix "sub" indicates a smaller portion of, not an enlargement of. A sub assembly is never larger than the assembly. A sub station is a smaller station. A SUBtraction makes a smaller value, not larger.
The sub prefix in this context is "below" rather than meaning that it is smaller. In the sense that it's below the parent type in a hierarchy of types. Like a squad is below a Lieutenant in a military hierarchy, even if the squad collectively weighs much more that the Lt. Or a particular narrow field of study might be a 'subfield.' For example, Quantum Chromodynamics is a subfield of Physics. QCD experts will be familiar with all the generally applicable jargon of Physics like mass and energy, but also have a lot of specialist jargon that is unique to their subfield that a general Physicist isn't necessarily familiar with.
Life is full of jargon that seems unfamiliar when we first encounter it. But it's usually more useful to learn the jargon than to try to convince a whole industry to change the way that talk about things because you personally find a different term clearer.
-
@JonB said in Use of word subclass:
To me it's just like you have class in the Animal Kingdom and then a subclass, or a species and then a subspecies. Who inherit certain features and may have others of their own.
As you follow those lineages in the Animal Kingdom, the count of species gets smaller and smaller. There the word subclass is appropriate because the higher levels are indeed super class.
That supports my position. Thank you. -
@JonB said in Use of word subclass:
So now I conclude, and in my not so humble opinion, the use of the word “subclass,” in the context presented, is wrong
Made me laugh :) You're wrong, but Happy Xmas!
My position is supported by facts. (Being the definitions of the words) The use of subclass rather than inherited or derived does not have facts other than the fact that people like to write it that way. Therefore I conclude my position is correct.
And Merry Christmas, Happy New year, and any other phrase you prefer. -
@BKBK said in Use of word subclass:
As you follow those lineages in the Animal Kingdom, the count of species gets smaller and smaller.
The count has nothing to do with anything. It's related to hierarchy - you go from the more general to the more specific in taxonomy. The ginko tree is the one and only one extant species of the Ginkgophyte order, are you going to suggest the order's demoted just because it had the rotten luck to currently contain only one living species?
Same reasoning applies in class hierarchy in programming as well. The base class is a generalization of a concept that's more specific in derived classes (if they exist). Your argument about "sprouting out of" and "count matters" is faulty. Just live with it.
-
@kshegunov said in Use of word subclass:
@BKBK said in Use of word subclass:
As you follow those lineages in the Animal Kingdom, the count of species gets smaller and smaller.
The count has nothing to do with anything.
The count is extremely important. By the definition of the prefix "sub" and the words inherit and derived, the use of subclass to reference derived or inherited classes, classes that are larger and more comprehensive, is incorrect. As we have two perfectly good words, inherit(ed) and derive(d), why would anyone want to use a word that, by its definition, does not fit.
As noted in post 9 (I think it is post 9) once started down the wrong path many, or even most, people will go to extreme lengths to avoid the realization that they made a mistake. I may not change anyone's mind, but I am right. -
@BKBK said in Use of word subclass:
I may not change anyone's mind, but I am right.
If you take this approach to language, you'll never be able to communicate with anybody. Language, by its nature, is an emergent property of consensus of the way that people communicate in practice. Aside from the very widely understood etymology of subclass in this context, charging into a community of people who understand each other and insisting that you are right in a way that nobody else agrees with just isn't a useful approach to language in general. If you start digging up etymologies of every word, you decide that they are 'wrong.'
"Compiler" can only mean a program that assembles chunks of existing code and not a program that transforms code from high level to machine language, for example. "Broadband" can't refer to high speed Internet. "Internet" can't refer to a specific network. "Bandwidth" can't refer to the speed of a data link. "Word" can only refer to an element of spoken language, not the length of a register. "Byte" can't be assumed to be 8 bits, or maybe Byte just isn't a real word at all. "Computer" can only refer to a human being employed to do mathematics for a living. I can make dramatically stronger arguments about the 'wrong' usage of every single one of those words than about the word "subclass." But if we did that, we'd be stuck just grunting and pointing at things and shrugging our shoulders because none of our words are good enough to satisfy 100% mutually consistent logical rules across all fields of application. Because natural human language just isn't something constructed out of 100% logical and systematic rules. Sometimes the sense of a word is just different in a different context.
-
@BKBK said in Use of word subclass:
The count is extremely important.
No it's not. Quantity and quality are different things. Arguing that quantity signifies quality is bogus. Generalizations (what inheritance treats) deal with quality, and are not a quantitative characteristic.
By the definition of the prefix "sub" and the words inherit and derived, the use of subclass to reference derived or inherited classes, classes that are larger and more comprehensive, is incorrect.
"Sub-", as already explained to you, in this context means "below" (not "smaller") and it's, as again already explained, used because of the usual way of putting generalizations on top of the things they relate to - that is to encompass what they generalize. Rationally there is no significant reason that this is like this beside historical reasons.
I can define anything the way I want to. I can define 600nm light to be "green", and I'd be just as right as long as people understand what I mean when I say "green light". Definitions, just because they're that - definitions, are arbitrary and not subject to proof.
As noted in post 9 (I think it is post 9) once started down the wrong path many, or even most, people will go to extreme lengths to avoid the realization that they made a mistake.
It's called confirmation bias, and it's not the case here.
I may not change anyone's mind, but I am right.
You'd think that, wouldn't you? Well, it's your right to think so, but it's also everybody else's right to think what you think is wrong.
-
@JonB said in Use of word subclass:
Guys, I think & presume we are to take @BKBK's comments with a certain amount of Festive Cheer and tongue-in-cheek-ness. :)
All, I should not have made my last comment about being right. That was inappropriate. I would edit it but that would make other posts appear inconsistent. Rather I extend my apologies.
