13 Sep
2024
13 Sep
'24
6:26 a.m.
I've
despaired over the term ever since it wormed its way into
computer folks' vocabulary. How does a "use case" differ from a
"use"?
Clarity as to whether one is employing a noun or a verb. Both "use" and
"case" can be either (he said, casing the joint for tomorrow's heist),
but juxtaposing them thus unambiguously makes a noun phrase. 
13 Sep
13 Sep
7:01 a.m.
New subject: On computerese
"use case" is a case of the use of both of the words "use" and
"case",
compounding (confounding ?) them, they specify the use of "case" to
identify (and emphasize) a specific "use" (or set of uses), as distinct
from other cases in which so much attention has not been paid to which
uses they serve. I'm having fun with words here but, like test cases can
be used to isolate (or mix) certain behaviors, use cases might be
crafted as examples, for the purpose of distilling from them, clearer
requirements. I think the requirements people were trying to borrow the
style of language from the test people. But many times it's probably
just jargon-y technical sounding buzz-wordery meant to make things seem
more important than they are.
On 09/12/2024 05:26 PM, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
Usually context makes the nominal use of "use" clear : "many uses",
"the use",
"some uses". I'm not persuaded that "use case" disambiguates
any more
reliably.
How do supermarkets display their wares?
For some use cases they use cases.
Metacomment. While the "use" in "nominal use" above must be a noun,
"nominal" isn't compelled to have the intended meaning of "being a
noun". It's a game of whac-a-mot. Kill one ambiguity and spawn another.
Doug
I've despaired over the term ever since it wormed
its way into
computer folks' vocabulary. How does a "use case" differ from a
"use"?
Clarity as to whether one is employing a noun or a verb. Both "use" and
"case" can be either (he said, casing the joint for tomorrow's heist),
but juxtaposing them thus unambiguously makes a noun phrase. 
8:20 a.m.
New subject: On computerese
On Thursday, September 12th, 2024 at 6:01 PM, Luther Johnson
<luther.johnson(a)makerlisp.com> wrote:
"use case" is a case of the use of both of
the words "use" and "case",
compounding (confounding ?) them, they specify the use of "case" to
identify (and emphasize) a specific "use" (or set of uses), as distinct
from other cases in which so much attention has not been paid to which
uses they serve. I'm having fun with words here but, like test cases can
be used to isolate (or mix) certain behaviors, use cases might be
crafted as examples, for the purpose of distilling from them, clearer
requirements. I think the requirements people were trying to borrow the
style of language from the test people. But many times it's probably
just jargon-y technical sounding buzz-wordery meant to make things seem
more important than they are.
On 09/12/2024 05:26 PM, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
> > > I've despaired over the term ever since it wormed its way into
> > > computer folks' vocabulary. How does a "use case" differ
from a "use"?
> >
> > Clarity as to whether one is employing a noun or a verb. Both "use"
and
> > "case" can be either (he said, casing the joint for tomorrow's
heist),
> > but juxtaposing them thus unambiguously makes a noun phrase.
>
> Usually context makes the nominal use of "use" clear : "many
uses",
> "the use",
> "some uses". I'm not persuaded that "use case"
disambiguates any more
> reliably.
>
> How do supermarkets display their wares?
> For some use cases they use cases.
>
> Metacomment. While the "use" in "nominal use" above must be a
noun,
> "nominal" isn't compelled to have the intended meaning of "being
a
> noun". It's a game of whac-a-mot. Kill one ambiguity and spawn another.
>
> Doug
I always assumed this was some old crusty project management term that predated modern
technology but the Wikipedia sphere says it was coined in the late 80s by Ivar Jacobson of
Ericsson in the context of requirements analysis. Apparently the original Swedish term is
"användningsfall". I've got a coworker that likes to share "fun
facts" every Friday...I might have to supplement that bit of our call tomorrow :)
- Matt G.
10:03 a.m.
New subject: On computerese
I always assumed this was some old crusty project
management term that predated modern technology but the Wikipedia sphere says it was
coined in the late 80s by Ivar Jacobson of Ericsson in the context of requirements
analysis. Apparently the original Swedish term is "användningsfall". I've
got a coworker that likes to share "fun facts" every Friday...I might have to
supplement that bit of our call tomorrow :)
- Matt G.
For reference, here's the relevant (and lengthy) Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case
--eric
10:05 p.m.
New subject: On computerese
On 2024-09-13 06:03, Eric E. Bowles via TUHS wrote:
Ericsson corrupting the use of English words is not news to me,
as I've had some exposure to various Ericsson operations
at that time (and onwards).
It can be noted that they were deep into the process of replacing
Swedish with English everywhere, in documentation and (internal
as well as external) communication. To this end, and to alleviate
the pains of most senior execs (many of who were of a generation
where German, not English, was the first foreign language studied
in primary schools), Ericsson invented some rather Pidginesque
internal variety of English that actually was branded "Ericsson
English." It wouldn't surprise me if "Användningsfall" (which
is a term in Ericsson "PROPS" process management methodology)
was translated to "use case" there already before Jacobson
used it in his documentation.
It's no surprise that "Ericsson English" basically was Swedish
with word-for-word replacements. This abomination was surprisingly
usable, probably because they're both Germanic languages
who were mutually intelligible until maybe 1000 years ago.
MfG,
--
Åke Nordin <ake.nordin(a)netia.se>, resident Net/Lunix/telecom geek.
Netia Data AB, Stockholm SWEDEN *46#7O466OI99#
I always
assumed this was some old crusty project management term that predated modern technology
but the Wikipedia sphere says it was coined in the late 80s by Ivar Jacobson of Ericsson
in the context of requirements analysis. Apparently the original Swedish term is
"användningsfall". I've got a coworker that likes to share "fun
facts" every Friday...I might have to supplement that bit of our call tomorrow :)
- Matt G.
For reference, here's the relevant (and lengthy) Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case
1:13 p.m.
New subject: On computerese
At 2024-09-12T20:26:03-0400, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
>> I've despaired over the term ever since
it wormed its way into
>> computer folks' vocabulary. How does a "use case" differ from a
>> "use"?
For TUHS readers curious about the start of this thread, it's here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2024-09/msg00040.html
Regards,
Branden
7:57 p.m.
New subject: On computerese
On 9/12/24, Douglas McIlroy wrote:
There it festered, right in the middle of
Branden's otherwise high
literary
style: "use cases". I've despaired over the term ever since it wormed
its
way into computer folks' vocabulary. How does a "use case" differ from a
"use"? Or, what's the use of "use case"?
And while I'm despairing, "concatenate" rolls on, undeterred by
Research's
campaign for concision. We determinedly excised the word from the seventh
edition. The man page header for cat(1) read "catenate and print". Posix
added content on both ends, making "concatenate and print files". Gnu
puffed it up further to "concatenate files and print on the standard
output".
It's not as if the seventh edition was storming the gates of English.
According to the OED, "catenate" and "concatenate" are synonyms of
long
standing that entered the language almost simultaneously. Why pick the
flabby one over its brisk--and more mnemonic--rival?
Doug
Just gotta say, I completely agree with this sentiment as regards
catenate. Also, I've never been sold
on use-case, either. If I remember, it was Jacobson who popularized the
term. Maybe use-case was contrived
to provide some further distinction from the uses connection... as in
the use-case:
Validate Password uses Enter Password...
Personally, I think a use is fine and it doesn't matter much that in a
use, an actor uses a function...but hey,
technical fields are well known and loved for using language in
perfectly unreasonable ways. Technical language is used, ostensibly, to
disambiguate, but more often than not it obscures and alienates. In my
classes, I spend a lot of effort breaking things down into simple terms
while pointing out the use of jargon and the importance of nailing it
for the chosen profession - likening it to a cult of technicality. Big
fan of KISS here :). Terms should mean what they say so professionals
can say what they mean... clearly and with as little ambiguity as is
reasonable, that is, language affords a great deal of redundancy and we
should not be afraid to leverage this tool as well - leave the hunt for
perfect disambiguation to the mathematicians.
- will
100
days inactive
100
days old
8 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Adam Thornton -
Douglas McIlroy -
Eric E. Bowles -
G. Branden Robinson -
Luther Johnson -
segaloco -
Will Senn -
Åke Nordin