>What is easier having to have this conversation EVERY time the term gets used for the rest of eternity, or making the change once and being done with it?
That's not very compelling. Just because certain people make a lot of noise doesn't mean we have to do what they want us to do.
>For most projects it seems like a pretty easy change. You could add new keywords, alias the old methods/commands to them. You don't even have to deprecate them, just make the docs point to the newer terminology.
...for every project that uses these terms across the entire industry. You know what's easier? Not making the change. There are two arguments:
1. The technical gain by changing these terms outweighs the drawbacks (legacy code, consensus/convention, etc.). I doubt there's much to gain here.
2. The technical aspect doesn't matter since it's offensive. I've already addressed this.
It depends on how expensive your deprecation process is. I don't think we can generalize for entire ecosystems. Some langs and products it would be fairly trivial to update, and retain back wards compat. Others might be harder and stay constant for longer.
Antirez said if he started a new project it would be named something different. I can only assume some other future databases will will take this approach. Maybe Antirez will write one of them. When that happens now we have a new problem: divergence in the ecosystem.
My preference would be for a big project to adopt a separate term, "secondary", "follower", "replica", whatever. So that when other new DBs look for an "alternative term" there is somewhat of a standard. Really though, that's not even that bad of a problem, because when i say all those terms, "secondary" etc. it's pretty obvious in the context of a DB what i'm talking about.
Do you have to do something __just__ because people are making your life hard? No. Do you have to make a change just because something is technically incorrect? No. Do you have to make a change because something is offensive to a large group of people? Still no. Maybe a better question to ask is, at what point would the tables be turned? What would push you over the edge to say it should be changed?
>It depends on how expensive your deprecation process is. I don't think we can generalize for entire ecosystems. Some langs and products it would be fairly trivial to update, and retain back wards compat. Others might be harder and stay constant for longer.
Agreed - I was talking more 'sum' than 'average' cost.
>Antirez said if he started a new project it would be named something different. I can only assume some other future databases will will take this approach. Maybe Antirez will write one of them. When that happens now we have a new problem: divergence in the ecosystem.
Also agreed, divergence breaks the 'consensus/convention' I mentioned earlier. That definitely has consequences, although in this case it wouldn't be too bad, as you mention next:
>My preference would be for a big project to adopt a separate term, "secondary", "follower", "replica", whatever. So that when other new DBs look for an "alternative term" there is somewhat of a standard. Really though, that's not even that bad of a problem, because when i say all those terms, "secondary" etc. it's pretty obvious in the context of a DB what i'm talking about.
Also true, and (assuming we're making the change) that seems to be the path of least resistance. At least we'd only have one new term, lol. And they are fairly clear.
>Do you have to do something __just__ because people are making your life hard? No. Do you have to make a change just because something is technically incorrect? No. Do you have to make a change because something is offensive to a large group of people? Still no. Maybe a better question to ask is, at what point would the tables be turned? What would push you over the edge to say it should be changed?
It's hard to quantify the factors imo. You kinda have to balance consensus/convention & migration cost vs. 'cost of incorrectness' & 'human cost of offensive term'. Cost of incorrectness is a big one if newbies struggle to understand the tech due to confusing terminology, but I don't see that here. If the term were truly offensive I'd agree that that'd tip the scales. I just don't see it.
That's not very compelling. Just because certain people make a lot of noise doesn't mean we have to do what they want us to do.
>For most projects it seems like a pretty easy change. You could add new keywords, alias the old methods/commands to them. You don't even have to deprecate them, just make the docs point to the newer terminology.
...for every project that uses these terms across the entire industry. You know what's easier? Not making the change. There are two arguments:
1. The technical gain by changing these terms outweighs the drawbacks (legacy code, consensus/convention, etc.). I doubt there's much to gain here.
2. The technical aspect doesn't matter since it's offensive. I've already addressed this.