• Ramenator@lemmy.world
      0·
      10 months ago

      “Dammit, for some reason I can’t kill all the children, a few of them always survive, I must have a leak somewhere”

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        0·
        10 months ago

        “master” in version control has no corresponding “slave,” but nevertheless the “master/slave” terminology is the reason why GitHub switched to “main” and everyone else followed suit

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        0·
        10 months ago

        The naming isn’t great still… I usually use ReadWrite instance and replica. I really wish we had some more concise replacement terms.

        • Kogasa@programming.dev
          0·
          10 months ago

          Main is the replacement for master for git branches, not the general master-slave pattern. Wikipedia suggests:

          Other replacement names include controller, default, director, host, initiator, leader, manager, primary, principal, root; and for slave: agent, client, device, performer, peripheral, replica, responder, satellite, secondary, subordinate, and worker.

          I usually use controller / worker if it’s a local process or controller / remote if the subordinates are on different hosts.

          • _edge@discuss.tchncs.de
            0·
            10 months ago

            I know I’m old, but never found that calling a dumb machine a slave to be problemtic. The thing is supposed to obey my orders. It’s in the code and code is law.

            I’m also not American and never owned slaves.

  • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    Naming things is hard and people really suck at it. Many new projects just pick a random word out of the dictionary (or encyclopedia) that has absolutely nothing to do with the project or company and mess up internet searches forever.

    The game “Brand name or dictionary entry” would probably be very difficult to play.

    CC BY-NC-SA 4.0