Maybe someone could add an article on the word "Hacker"(noun/adj). Jargon file might be a good source for this one. I would do it but I'm too lazy to do the translations. Or, maybe someone should include the definition/usage of the term that is medium-independent e.g.: "Reality Hacker", "Society Hacker", etc...
To me, a hack (in programming) connotes inelegant code (as in: it's ugly, but it works). I would add that sense to one of the definitions, but to which one? Or should it be a separate definition? And while I'm at it, what exactly is the distinction we're trying to make here between "a feat in computer programming" and "an addition of code to a program"? Simply that in the latter case the program already exists? Does that really warrant a separate definition? - Dcljr 21:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think they mean there is a sense where any old quick change can be called a hack, and another sense where an impressive or clever changed is called a hack. — Hippietrail 02:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The sense of "hack" meaning "horse" has an English etymology dating c.1300, and so can't meaningfully be described as "Spanglish". Also, it doesn't necessarily mean old and tired, just ordinary. I realise the connotation of "old and tired" exists however, hence the wording. Hairy Dude 03:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Old Hack noun citation
Donald Knuth has as an epigraph for his draft bitwise tricks chapter for TAOCP the following quote:
Lady Caroline: Psha! that's such a hack! Sir Simon: A hack, Lady Caroline, that the knowing ones have warranted sound.
From George Colman's 1803 play John Bull, Act 3 Scene 1. --188.8.131.52 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Kept. See archived discussion of February 2009. 07:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Consistent distinction in meanings
As of http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=hack&oldid=8815150 (sorry, I'm not sure of the preferred way to link to a page's snapshot), definition 6 of the verb seems to correspond to definitions 8 and 9 of the noun. A one-to-one correspondence would be more consistent. Thoughts on whether there should be a merge or split? 184.108.40.206 01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- Unless the consistency is supportable by citations (such as from books or periodicals or Usenet) illustrating that a distinction that may exist (Is that distinction actually true in use?) in the verb carries over to the noun or vice versa, there is no reason to insert definitions merely for consistency. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- The definition "an expedient, temporary solution, meant to be replaced with a more elegant solution at a later date" (which appeared in this revision) reads to me as a generalization of "a small code change meant to patch a problem as quickly as possible." If it's consistent with wiktionary practice, I believe that the two should merge into something like "an expedient, temporary solution, usually a code change, meant to be replaced with a more elegant solution at a later date," but with fewer commas and less wordiness. However, I might be missing the distinction the user at 220.127.116.11 intended. 18.104.22.168 22:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
A true adjective should be gradable (modifiably by "true" or "very" and be usable as a predicate after "become" or some similar copula). Often nouns are used "attributively" before another noun, modifying it. Almost any noun can be used this way. A word that does not meet the other tests is not supposed to have separate adjective section as it would be a simple duplication of the noun section adding no value. Unfortunately, that kind of grammatical knowledge is not widespread and many popular entries that should not have an adjective section have the adjective sections added and expanded inappropriately. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC) The case of hack#Adjective is a good illustration. That it is not comparable makes it also unlikely that it would be found modified by "too" or "very". I doubt very much that one could find it in use after "become". Accordingly, I will put the adjective into our WT:RFV process, which will lead to citations or deletion of that section. The usage examples should be moved to the appropriate sense before or at the time of the deletion. DCDuring TALK 17:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
hack#Adjective, shown as not comparable. I believe that this is only attributive use of the noun. It would need cites showing it as comparable or gradable or appearing after "become". See Talk:hack and Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- RFV failed, adjective section removed, examples moved to the noun sense. —RuakhTALK 13:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note: the below discussion was moved from the Wiktionary:Tea room.
This entry already has a number of etymologies, but it does not have an entry for Verb = 1) "to go riding on horseback" 2) "to allow a young falcon to fly free". Nor Noun = 1) "a horse hired out to be ridden, to be taken hacking." I'm not sure if this is yet another etymol. Any help would be appreciated. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 11:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Added. Ƿidsiþ 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)