TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Chris Hamilton writes:
> The product I'm currently documenting has something called profiles,
> of which there are three flavors: master, server, and thread.
I think we've properly buried the m*****/s**** controversy, but I've
seen a couple of posts which raise an interesting topic: mixing
metaphors. For instance, somebody wrote earlier that a product he was
documenting had a hierarchy that went something like root/parent/sibling.
Now I see master/server/thread.
Of course it's impossible from these tech-whirl postings to determine
what relationship these various entities are supposed to have to each
other, but I question these groupings. What seems to be happening is
that we are getting some sort of semantic drift happening in software
terminology.
"Parent/child" is a perfectly good metaphor for certain relationships,
especially in OOP and multithreading operating systems. "Master/slave"
works well in other contexts, such as hardware. When we use or discuss
these constructions, we should be aware of a couple of points:
1) The argument that we should avoid these words because of offensive
connotations is ludicrous. We use them precisely because of these
connotations: they are what give the metaphor power. It's a very quick
way to call on a shared bit of knowledge to describe a relationship
between two things. If we've lost the ability to distinguish between a
metaphor and real life, we're in pretty sad shape.
2) Mixing and matching these terms destroys the metaphor. "Root/branch"
makes sense; "root/parent" makes no sense. "Parent/sibling" is at best
ambiguous - is the sibling the parent's sibling, or the parent's child?
"Master/server/thread" is a construction completely devoid of any
internal logic.
So when Chris asks:
> So, is the use of the word "master" without the context of slaves
offensive?
perhaps he (she?) might more productively ask "is the use of the word
master
without slave sensible?" I say no, of course not.
Pete Kloppenburg - pkloppen -at- certicom -dot- com
Technical Writer
Certicom Corp
Mississauga, Ontario,
Canada http://www.certicom.com
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html
