Count me as a programmer who has never heard that weirdass definition of grovel.
Blips
4966
I’ll add my name too, to the virtual hat.
Miramon
4967
You guys probably don’t even know what a bogon is or why the standard unit of bogosity, the Lenat, is too big for everyday use.
RichVR
4970
Really liked those gifs, eh?
Programming circles are not used as indicators for acceptable use of language for many reasons. We can add this to the list. I recommend four Hail Marys and a drink for your penance.
I agree that the use in question of “groveling” is pretty unusual, but how do we decide which subcultures’ argots are acceptable here and which ones aren’t?
Easy. Ask Matt Keil! He’ll set you straight.
The day we start letting programmers be authorities on language is the beginning of the end.
kerzain
4977
Transcript show:‘I concur’;cr
On this issue? Yeah, I will. I don’t try to tell programmers how to program, and they can go ahead and not try to tell me how English works.
The thing is, the jargon term almost certainly started out as a malapropism. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t, with sufficient repetition, become acceptable over time, and even being included in a few internet dictionaries is decent enough cover for at least using it in-context. But I think the malapropism origin (and the fact that it still looks exactly like one) makes it even less desirable in general conversation than “grok” or “cruft” or other nerd jargon.
The problem with that perspective is that the people who write the spell–checking and grammar-checking logic have arguably the most authority over who English works.
