Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
Hackers Slang.
The new for us kind of job, hackering has its own slang and various expressions, that illuminate many aspects of hackish tradition, folklore, and humor. Over the years a number of individuals have been working considerable time for editing the hackish dictionary.
There are some standard methods of jargonification that became established quite early (i.e. before 1970). These include verb doubling, 'soundalike' slang, the '-P' convention, overgeneralization, spoken 'inarticulations', and anthropomorphization.
Doubling Verbs.
A standard construction in English is to double verb and to use it as exclamation, such as 'Bang, bang!' or something else. Most of these are the names for computer noises. Hackers also double verb as a concise, sometimes sarcastic comment on what the implied subject does. Also a doubled verb is often used to terminate a conversation, in the process remarking on the current state of affairs or what the speaker intends to do next. As an example I'll mention the verb ‘lose’ that hackers use to show that something has failed; that someone is obnoxious or unusually stupid; that something is unaesthetic or crock. 'Lose lose' is an interjection that is used as a reply or comment on an undesirable situation. 'I accidentally deleted all my files! Lose, lose'
Some verb-doubled constructions have special meanings not immediately obvious from the verb.
Hackers' humor often based on deliberately confounding parts of speech.
'Soundalike' Slang.
Hackers will often make rhymes or puns in order to convert an ordinary word or phrase into something more interesting. It is considered particularly flavorful [adj., aesthetically pleasing] if the phrase is bent so as to include some other jargon word; thus the computer magazine 'Dr. Dobb's Journal' is almost always referred to among hackers as 'Dr. Frob's Journal' or simply 'Dr. Frob's'. Also there are some terms of this kind that have been in fairly wide use include names for newspapers:
'Boston Herald' is called as 'Horrid' or 'Harried'; 'Houston (or San Francisco) Chronicle' became 'the Crocknicle' or 'the Comical'; 'New Your Times' is called 'New York Slime'.
However, terms like these are often made up on the spur of a moment. Standard examples include: IBM 360 became 'IBM Three-Sickly'; 'Government Property --- Do Not Duplicate' (on keys or CD's) is almost always used as 'Government Duplicity --- Do Not Propagate'; 'for historical reasons' as 'for hysterical raisings'; Margaret Jacks Hall (the building in Stanford) became 'Marginal Hacks Hall'; 'Internet Explorer' is called 'Internet Exploiter'.
Language is the most human possess, thus I cannot forget about some expressions that sometimes seem outrageous, but some people use them very often. The nature of slang is to make taboo phrases more useful and widely popular. Hackers often call 'Wall Street Journal' as 'Wall Street Urinal' and computer term 'Data General' is called as 'Dirty Genitals'.
The '-P' Convention or 'Gosperism'.
Hackers turn a word into a question by appending the syllable 'P'. The question should expect a yes/no answer, though it needn't.
As an answer some hackers almost reflexively say 'T', that means 'yes'. In programming languages is often used term 'true', so programmers very often answer 'true' or simply 'T'. Sometimes this causes misunderstandings. When a waiter or a flight attendant asks whether a hacker wants coffee, he may absently respond 'T', meaning that he wants coffee, but of course he will be brought a cup of tea instead. Also 'T' is used as an abbreviation for term 'transaction'.
As 'no' is often used term 'nil'. It is also used as a reply for question, particularly on asked using the '-P' convention.
For example at dinnertime:
Q : 'Food-p?'
A : 'Yeah, I'm pretty hungry.' or 'T!'
Also these called Gosperism. A hack invention or one of the sayings Bill Gosper. He invented a lot of terms that hackers use today. There was a funny story with Gosper when he went a Chinese restaurant. He wanted to know whether someone would like to share with him a two-person-sized bowl of soup. His inquiry was:
'Split-p soup?'
Overgeneralization. This is a very conspicuous feature of slang. It is computer terms that are used outside the computing context. Sometimes it becomes very amusing.
Thus hackers often grep [to rapidly scan a file or set of files looking for a particular pattern] for things rather than searching for them.
It took his name from the paper 'A General Regular Expression Parse'. Many of the lexicon entries are generalizations of exactly this kind.
Hackers enjoy overgeneralization on the grammatical level as well. Many hackers love to take various words and add the wrong endings to them to make nouns and verbs. For example : 'porous' produces 'porosity'; 'generous' - 'generosity'; 'mysterious' - 'mysteriosity', 'obvious' - 'obviosity' etc.
Another class of common construction uses the suffix '-itude' to abstract a quality from just any adjective to noun. For example: 'win' makes 'winnitude', 'loss' - 'lossitude'.
Some hackers cheerfully reserve this transformation; they argue, for example, that the horizontal degree lines on a globe ought to be called 'lats', because they are measuring latitude.
Also all the nouns can be 'verbed'. 'I'm grepping the files'
The suffix '-full' can also be applied in generalized and fanciful ways, as in 'As soon as I have more than one 'headfull' of ideas, I start writing it all down'. A common use is 'screenfull', meaning the amount of text that will fit on one screen, usually in text mode where you have no choice as to character size. However hackers would never, for example, 'productize', 'prioritize', or 'securitize' things. Hackers have a strong aversion to bureaucratic regards.
Similarly, all verbs can be 'nouned'. This is only a slight overgeneralization in modern English; in hackish, however, it is good form to make them in some standard nonstandard way. Thus: 'win' makes 'winnitude', 'winnage'; 'disgust' - 'disgustitude'; 'hack' - 'hackification' etc.
Further, note the prevalence of certain kinds of nonstandard plural forms. For example 'mouse' in plural will be 'meeces'.
On a similarly Anglo-Saxon note, almost everything ending in 'x' may form plurals in '-xen'. Even words ending in phonetic /k/ alone are sometimes treated this way; e.g. 'soxen' for a bunch of socks. This feature was signed not before the year 2000, thirty years after it might logically have come into usage; it has been suggested that this is because '-ix' and '-ex' are Latin singular endings that attract Latinate plural.
The pattern here, as with other hackish grammatical quirks, is generalization of an inflectional rule that in English is either an import or a fossil (such as the Hebrew plural ending '-im', or the Anglo-Saxon plural suffix '-en') to cases where it isn't normally to apply.
This is not 'poor grammar', as hackers are generally quite well aware of what they are doing when they distort the language. It is grammatical creativity, a form of playfulness. It is done not to impress, but to amuse, and never as the expense of clarity.
Spoken 'Inarticulations'. Very often hackers use words such as 'mumble', 'groan' and 'sigh' in unnatural places for these words. It has been suggested that this usage derives from the impossibility of representing computer noises (interestingly, the same sorts of constructions have been showing up in any comic strips). Another expression sometimes heard is 'Complain!', meaning 'I have a complaint!'
Anthropomorphization. Semantically, one rich source of jargon constructions is the hackish tendency to anthropomorphize hardware and software. English academic computer scientists frequently look down on others for anthropomorphizing hardware and software, considering this sort of behavior to be characteristic of naive misunderstanding. But most hackers anthropomorphize freely, frequently describing program behavior in terms of wants and desires.
Thus it is common to hear hardware or software talked about as though the computers talk to each other inside it, with intentions and desires. Thus, one hears 'the protocol handler got confused', or that the programs 'are trying' to do things, or one may say of a routine that 'its goal in life is to X'. Or: 'You can't run those two cards on the same bus; they fight over interrupt 9.'
One even hears explanation like '...and its poor little brain couldn't understand X, and it died.' Sometimes modeling things this way actually seems to make them easier to understand, perhaps because it is instinctively natural to think of anything with a really complex behavioral repertoire, as ‘like a person ‘rather than’ like a thing.
At first glance, to anyone who understands how these programs actually work, this seems like an absurdity.
The key to understanding this kind of usage is that it isn't done in a naive way; hackers don't personalize their stuff in the sense of feeling empathy with it, nor do they mystically believe that the things they work on every day are 'alive'. To the contrary: hackers who anthromorphize are expressing not a vitalistic view of program behavior but a mechanistic view of human behavior.
In this view, almost all hackers subscribe that people are biological machines. This mind is implemented in machinery, which is not fundamentally different in information-processing capacity from computers.
Hackers tend to take this a step further and argue that substance of silicon or metal, or water doesn't really matter; what matters, what makes the thing 'alive' is only information and richness of pattern. It implies that the humans and computers, and dolphins, and rocks are all machines exhibiting a various modes according to their information-processing capacity.
Because hackers accept that a human can have intentions, it is therefore easy for them to ascribe consciousness and intention to complex patterned systems such as computers. If consciousness is mechanical, it is neither more or less absurd to say that 'The program wants to go into a infinite loop' than to say that 'I want to go eat some chocolate'.
This viewpoint has respectable company in academic philosophy.
It has also been argued that the anthropomorphization of software and hardware reflects a blurring of the boundary between the programmer and his artifacts - the human qualities belong to the programmer and the code merely expresses these qualities as his/her proxy. On this view, a hacker saying a piece of code 'got confused' is really saying that he (or she) was confused about exactly what he wanted the computer to do, the code naturally incorporated this confusion, and the code expressed the programmer's confusion when executed by crashing or otherwise misbehaving.
Note that by displacing from 'I got confused' to 'It got confused', the programmer is not avoiding responsibility, but rather getting some analytical distance in order to be able to consider the bug dispassionately.
Both explanations accrual model hacker psychology, and should be considered complementary rather than competing.
Finally, note that many words in hacker jargon have to be understood as members of sets of comparatives. This is especially true of the adjectives and nouns used to describe the beauty and functional quality of code. Here is an approximately correct spectrum: monstrosity, brain-damage screw, bug, lose, crock, kluge, hack, win, feature, elegance, perfection.
Another similar scale is used for describing the reliability of software: broken, flaky, dodgy, fragile, brittle, solid, robust, bulletproof, armor-plated.
Note, however, that 'dodgy' is primarily Commonwealth Hackish (it is rare in the U.S.) and may change places with 'flaky' for some speakers.
We've already seen that the hackers often coin slang by overgeneralizing grammatical rules. In hackers' writing we can see form-versus-content language jokes. In general hackish language is new for us and, I guess, may become widely used. Also hackish slang shows us that language is 'alive', meaning, that by replacing words, suffixes, endings etc., changing rules in amusing way we coin new language every day.