It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology's problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

Never said it made me right. Just didn't make sense to me. You can still use whatever you like, as I do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    That’s not how the terms entered computing though. We always used master in opposition of one or multiple slaves.

    And yet you said this... Acting like you speak for the entirety of industry, when I bring up one specific facet of our industry that isn't using the term juxtaposition to "slaves"... but rather to other concepts of "master", you now magically change your tune.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Look, I come from the hardware part of the industry and have never seen anyone talk about "master records" in software but always about master devices controlling slave devices. I'll give you that, apparently "master records" are a thing (although I'm curious in what part of the industry). At the same time, it seems so niche and weird to me that there's no point for me to use it. I'll stick with main because it just makes more sense and seems a lot more intuitive to people than to think about master records and what not. You do you, I personally absolutely do not care at all what you go with in your projects.

  • source
  • parent