Re: more peeves

[Laura Johnson <lauraj -at- CND -dot- HP -dot- COM>]

Matt Hicks (matt -at- unidata -dot- ucar -dot- edu) wrote:
: Haven't seen anyone mention any of these yet (probably a couple of them
: int the pipe though):

:           instantiate - I had a long debate with one of our programmers over
:                         the validity of this word. He admits that it's not
:                         in any dictionary, but insists that it has a
:                         subtlety of meaning that differentiates it from
 "create"
: .
:                         He claims it used when one "creates an instance of
:                         class of widgets that has been previously defined; you
:                         instantiate the widget." I say you create the
:                         widget; he disagrees vehemently. He calls this
:                         evolution of the language; I call it another
:                         instance of redundant jargon.

The specific technical meaning of "instantiate" -- a bit of object-oriented
programming jargon -- certainly is different from "create". The writer of
a manual (meant for object-oriented programmers, not users) might find
him/herself with a choice of these two paragraphs:

"The Whizzbang class is already defined in the libraries.
 Create a Whizzbang widget by sending the message Whizzbang>>create with
 the appropriate parameters for your customized widget."

 or

"Instantiate a Whizzbang widget."

What's more, an object-oriented programmer would tend to read the first
paragraph two or three times, scratch his head, then say, "I guess they
mean I should instantiate a Whizzbang."

I offer apologies if the documentation in question was for users rather
than programmers, but if not, I suggest you get used to "instantiate."