Tell me more ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

There are several words in computer science which seem quite easy to understand, but when you just mix them with their application, they look more and more complex. I have seen many people who are new to computer programming getting confused very easily almost by every single technical term.

I believe it's not their problem, however I believe these technical terms could be quite more smart and probably much easier for understanding by non-technical person. For example I have already test that people can understand the term "Box" as a "Container of Data" much easier rather than "Variable". Maybe it shouldn't be like this and the term "Variable" is more correct, but if we could explain it in another way which could be more easier for most of the people to understand it better, so I think it's reasonable to sacrifices "Variable" and start using "Box".

So, here are a few words which I'm thinking of them most of the time, to finding a good replacement for them (at least for teaching purpose). I hope you help me in this way, either by completing this list or just simply suggesting alternatives for them. :)

  1. Variable
  2. Array
  3. Object-Oriented Programming
  4. Function
  5. Constant
  6. Class
  7. Object
share|improve this question
3  
I can't see this is constructive, either in terms of the FAQ or generally. It's like teaching English via ITA (I had to unlearn how to read to be taught to read at infant school, only to re-learn after a year or so). – Andrew Leach Oct 12 '12 at 19:48
2  
If you were to teach someone cooking, you wouldn't try and come up with a different word for sautée or braise. Several of the examples you cite are also used in other fields like algebra. If you're teaching Computer Science, then you must also teach the terminology. – ghoppe Oct 12 '12 at 20:11
I agree with @ghoppe, You don't want to rename these things you just want to define them for the student and then use the terms. You'd do them a great disservice to get them talking about "value boxes", "box stacks" and "resusable instruction groups" and then have them go out into the real world and not be able to communicate with other programmers. – Jim Oct 12 '12 at 20:18
1  
I'm not sure what the rules are in this case, but I was going to suggest an analogy with a boiler plate factory. Variables being the little numbered or lettered wheely things. Plate making machines are classes. Plates are objects. Stacks of plates - arrays. Factory designer - an Object Oriented Programmer. The thing that does the stamping - a function. The wheely thing with the company name - a constant. – Alan Gee Oct 12 '12 at 20:41
1  
I don't think it's sensible to name things after simpler things that they are like. While jargon does have a cost, the benefit is precision. There's a reason horse breeders don't just refer to every horse as a "horse". A variable may be like a box, but it's not a box. – David Schwartz Oct 13 '12 at 4:18
show 7 more comments

closed as not constructive by Andrew Leach, tchrist, coleopterist, ghoppe, Gnawme Oct 12 '12 at 20:17

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.