Talk:architecting
This definition should reflect that architecting is not a regular English word, but is mostly used by software developers in place of "designing," or "designing the architecture for..." BP
- A word that is used regularly in English probably is a "regular English word". Equinox ◑ 18:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Lots of words are in regular use that are fine in casual, idiomatic speech, but are not fine in more formal writing. A good dictionary should inform readers of the difference. The way this dictionary currently defines architecting might lead an editor to let it stand instead of using the regular term, "designing." BP — This comment was unsigned.
- Fair point, but I don't know which gloss would fit here: hardly "informal", because it often occurs in design documents. Perhaps "nonstandard," but AIUI that usually indicates a serious grammar deficiency such as "we's" for "we're". Feel free to open a discussion at WT:TR on this word if you like. Equinox ◑ 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Informal words occur frequently in design documents; that's why there are technical editors. I once edited a software specification from Australia that referred to the "fair dinkum" ANSI C compiler. Non-standard certainly describes architected/architecting. Such words appear in technical documents because someone:
- Doesn't know there's a better word (that's how the software industry got stuck with 'deprecated' for obsolescent)
- Is trying to make a document sound more technical
- Learned the use from someone who used it because of one of the first two reasons
A good dictionary doesn't try to freeze the language in time—of course—but should gently, firmly resist haphazard changes—new words or uses that fill vacuums that don't exist and that squash old nuances in the process.
- LOL. Did you just "technically edit" my comma? I don't have to conform to your house style here, do I? Equinox ◑ 22:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)