> erratums for this book can be found at the book’s website. In Latin, the plural of erratum is errata as is done with second declension neuter nouns in the nominative case. But I am writing in Modern English, and in Modern English we should be forming plural nouns by appending -s, or in cases of excess sibilance, -es. So, yes, erratums. Given a choice between progress and tradition, I am going with progress informed by the lessons of history. That is how things are made better.
- Doug Crockford

@codesections that makes zero sense. Why even use the latin word if you're going to mangle it and don't just use "errors", the English word that clearly descends from that latin word. This way he'd also avoid writing a whole explanatory paragraph too. 😕

@qwazix
>Why even use the latin word if you're going to mangle it…This way he'd also avoid writing a whole explanatory paragraph

But the explanatory paragraph is the actual point. Crockford is arguing that (programming) languages—more specifically, javascript—are just tools, and that people should evolve them to be better tools rather than sticking with tradition.

And he starts by making the same claim about natural languages.

Source is here: howjavascriptworks.com/sample.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!