Hacker News Reader

Off-topic but very important: The widespread misuse of the word 'dependency' is very very icky, linguistically speaking. This word originally meant: 'in a state of being dependent'. Usage: "Ronny hated his dependency on the kindness of strangers.". But it's being used to refer to the 'dependent', as well as the 'dependee', which is very poor form:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/25575/what-is-th...

https://wikidiff.com/dependee/dependent

View on HN

The original meaning still works. In the software world, where abstractions abound, each dependee of yours can be said to add one 'state of being dependent' to your set of requirements. That's what it meant originally in this young field; when an author chooses to use a library instead of writing their own code, they're adding a requirement for the user ("Hey, you gotta have this thing already installed"). The software is in a state of being dependent on each of its dependees, individually. Each such state could be removed by replacing the library, and thus there'd exist one less 'dependency'.

----

Yes, this is mental gymnastics, another fine staple of this glorious field.

I don't think that is any issue whatsoever, the software engineering world has largely agreed on the usage of the word dependency, doesn't really matter what linguists think. Language is consensus, not thesis papers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com