It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
people aren’t enthusiastic about handing onto a derelict term, people just don’t care because they don’t see a significant enough relation between the two for it to matter, and they know that any given reasonable person will also recognize it as well.
And for that matter, if we’re getting rid of master/slave because it’s so bad, we should get rid of killing processes, and especially killing child processes. Because those are arguably worse.
As a parent I have zero qualms about the term “killing child processes” also there’s far more actions involved in parent/child relationships in tech than just killing processes.
i suppose that’s true, but i think that’s unfair as the term master/slave itself wouldn’t constitute more than the literal power dynamic between A and B as is the intended point of the terminology. It’s not meant to be broadly applicable in a generic sense. Though if we were to argue that it would be equally as easy to argue that architecture designs constitute far more than a master/slave style, such that it would remove the significance of the term in a similar manner.