No, no, I make my games on a cmptr.

I'm not sure C++ needs to be restricted by prescriptive English grammar rules.

Maybe not, but "puter" and "stood" sound ignorant.

The prescriptivist in me agrees. And yet, I've talked to multiple programmers in person about this and they've all agreed with me that pronouncing "std" as "stid" (at least) communicates more information than "standard" since "standard" is such a generic term. Granted, "std::shared_ptr" is pretty C++-specific, but what if I say "standard copy," or "standard accumulate", or "standard fill?" How many programmers, even C++ programmers, would immediately understand that as "std::copy", "std::accumulate," and "std::fill"? Or even "standard vector?" Speaking from experience: not all of them. Not every programmer, especially game programmers who've spent most their careers working in C or using C++ without the standard library, is that familiar with the standard library. Not all C++ programmers bother to follow the latest standards, either.

"Standard vector" could refer to std::vector, or it could refer to the custom vector-like container that is standard across a particular engine. It could even refer to a custom mathematical vector structure that is standard across the engine. "stid vector" is very obviously std::vector.

I assert that applying English prescriptivism to any programming language with its associated multitude of jargon and overloaded terms is not simply practical. Furthermore, even in natural languages, a statement that communicates more information, but is grammatically incorrect, is more useful than one that is grammatically correct, but vague. I use the pronunciations I do because experience tells me that they are more useful. I'd imagine Herb would give similar reasons to the ones I have, but I don't pretend to speak for him.

The prescriptivist in me agrees. And yet, I've talked to multiple programmers in person about this and they've all agreed with me that pronouncing "std" as "stid" (at least) communicates more information than "standard" since "standard" is such a generic term. Granted, "std::shared_ptr" is pretty C++-specific, but what if I say "standard copy," or "standard accumulate", or "standard fill?" How many programmers, even C++ programmers, would immediately understand that as "std::copy", "std::accumulate," and "std::fill"? Or even "standard vector?" Speaking from experience: not all of them. Not every programmer, especially game programmers who've spent most their careers working in C or using C++ without the standard library, is that familiar with the standard library. Not all C++ programmers bother to follow the latest standards, either.

"Standard vector" could refer to std::vector, or it could refer to the custom vector-like container that is standard across a particular engine. It could even refer to a custom mathematical vector structure that is standard across the engine. "stid vector" is very obviously std::vector.

I assert that applying English prescriptivism to any programming language with its associated multitude of jargon and overloaded terms is not simply practical. Furthermore, even in natural languages, a statement that communicates more information, but is grammatically incorrect, is more useful than one that is grammatically correct, but vague. I use the pronunciations I do because experience tells me that they are more useful. I'd imagine Herb would give similar reasons to the ones I have, but I don't pretend to speak for him.

The prescriptivist in me agrees. And yet, I've talked to multiple programmers in person about this and they've all agreed with me that pronouncing "std" as "stid" (at least) communicates more information than "standard" since "standard" is such a generic term. Granted, "std::shared_ptr" is pretty C++-specific, but what if I say "standard copy," or "standard accumulate", or "standard fill?" How many programmers, even C++ programmers, would immediately understand that as "std::copy", "std::accumulate," and "std::fill"? Or even "standard vector?" Speaking from experience: not all of them. Not every programmer, especially game programmers who've spent most their careers working in C or using C++ without the standard library, is that familiar with the standard library. Not all C++ programmers bother to follow the latest standards, either.

"Standard vector" could refer to std::vector, or it could refer to the custom vector-like container that is standard across a particular engine. It could even refer to a custom mathematical vector structure that is standard across the engine. "stid vector" is very obviously std::vector.

I assert that applying English prescriptivism to any programming language with its associated multitude of jargon and overloaded terms is not simply practical. Furthermore, even in natural languages, a statement that communicates more information, but is grammatically incorrect, is more useful than one that is grammatically correct, but vague. I use the pronunciations I do because experience tells me that they are more useful. I'd imagine Herb would give similar reasons to the ones I have, but I don't pretend to speak for him.

OK, that does make sense. Still can we not come up with something better than "stood" or "stid"? Something descriptive? I would almost prefer "S-T-D". And there is NO excuse for "puter"! None! That is simply stupid! The word "pointer" has one meaning in computer programming and only one meaning and it takes the same time to say as "puter".

I concede on "pointer," but I don't think "std" needs to be "more descriptive" when it's already descriptive of itself. It's a name. Do you condemn "Rich" for not being a descriptive enough shortening of "Richard?" :)

I concede on "pointer," but I don't think "std" needs to be "more descriptive" when it's already descriptive of itself. It's a name. Do you condemn "Rich" for not being a descriptive enough shortening of "Richard?"

I guess I should rephrase. Replace "more descriptive" with "less stupid sounding".

I concede on "pointer," but I don't think "std" needs to be "more descriptive" when it's already descriptive of itself. It's a name. Do you condemn "Rich" for not being a descriptive enough shortening of "Richard?"

I guess I should rephrase. Replace "more descriptive" with "less stupid sounding".

Fair enough. :P