On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:20:36 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2015-11-24 08:39:34 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

Not a viable solution, the logistics of making such a change would make
it a practical impossibility.

I understand that new builds *are* moving that way. It's conversion of
existing installations that is infeasible.


Now there is an English construct that grinds with me. This British
utilization of "build" as in "the build". What is wrong with "new
construction *is* moving that way"?

One also dislikes "the spend".

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:11:33 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:20:36 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2015-11-24 08:39:34 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

Not a viable solution, the logistics of making such a change would make
it a practical impossibility.

I understand that new builds *are* moving that way. It's conversion of
existing installations that is infeasible.


Now there is an English construct that grinds with me. This British
utilization of "build" as in "the build". What is wrong with "new
construction *is* moving that way"?

Whats wrong with "new builds are" other than you don't like it?

--
Spud

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:28:52 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:11:33 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:20:36 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote:

On 2015-11-24 08:39:34 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

Not a viable solution, the logistics of making such a change would make
it a practical impossibility.

I understand that new builds *are* moving that way. It's conversion of
existing installations that is infeasible.


Now there is an English construct that grinds with me. This British
utilization of "build" as in "the build". What is wrong with "new
construction *is* moving that way"?

Whats wrong with "new builds are" other than you don't like it?

Hard to put one's finger on it. It is using the verb "build" as a
noun in an untraditional way. Building is the noun derived from to
build.

"New buildings are" would be OK.

e27002 aurora wrote:

Hard to put one's finger on it. It is using the verb "build" as a
noun in an untraditional way. Building is the noun derived from to
build.


The OED's oldest example of "build" as a noun (= "a building") is
attributed to 1387. It shows it as obsolete but changes in English
usage are often "back to the future"

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:38:02 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:28:52 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Whats wrong with "new builds are" other than you don't like it?

Hard to put one's finger on it. It is using the verb "build" as a
noun in an untraditional way. Building is the noun derived from to
build.

"New buildings are" would be OK.

I see your point, but English changes as the years go by. And compared to some
of the ugly words and constructs added to the language recently this IMO is
fairly innocuous.

--
Spud

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:13:22 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:38:02 +0000
e27002 aurora wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:28:52 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
Whats wrong with "new builds are" other than you don't like it?

Hard to put one's finger on it. It is using the verb "build" as a
noun in an untraditional way. Building is the noun derived from to
build.

"New buildings are" would be OK.

I see your point, but English changes as the years go by.

** compared to some
of the ugly words and constructs added to the language recently this IMO is
fairly innocuous **

One cannot argue with that!

In message , at 12:03:26 on Thu, 26 Nov
2015, Robin remarked:

Hard to put one's finger on it. It is using the verb "build" as a
noun in an untraditional way. Building is the noun derived from to
build.

The OED's oldest example of "build" as a noun (= "a building") is
attributed to 1387. It shows it as obsolete but changes in English
usage are often "back to the future"

Also commonly used the last 20 years in software engineering to describe
the output from an assembler/compiler/linker.

eg My Android phone is running Build number LMY48T
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:41:39 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:03:26 on Thu, 26 Nov
2015, Robin remarked:

Hard to put one's finger on it. It is using the verb "build" as a
noun in an untraditional way. Building is the noun derived from to
build.

The OED's oldest example of "build" as a noun (= "a building") is
attributed to 1387. It shows it as obsolete but changes in English
usage are often "back to the future"

Also commonly used the last 20 years in software engineering to describe
the output from an assembler/compiler/linker.

"Software engineering" is another recent phrase. Its what used to be known
as programming but I guess that didn't have enough gravitas for some people.
IMO programming is as much art as it is engineering and doesn't really
deserve the engineering moniker, especially given that most of us who work
in programming don't have the professional qualifications or certfications
equivalent to those who do real engineering. And no, Mickeysoft Certfied
Engineer doesn't count.

--
Spud

In message , at 13:29:15 on Thu, 26 Nov
2015, d remarked:

Hard to put one's finger on it. It is using the verb "build" as a
noun in an untraditional way. Building is the noun derived from to
build.

The OED's oldest example of "build" as a noun (= "a building") is
attributed to 1387. It shows it as obsolete but changes in English
usage are often "back to the future"

Also commonly used the last 20 years in software engineering to describe
the output from an assembler/compiler/linker.

"Software engineering" is another recent phrase. Its what used to be known
as programming but I guess that didn't have enough gravitas for some people.

Long ago there were "Systems analysts" who drew up the specifications
for what they thought needed doing, and programmers were just the
"brickies" putting it together.

IMO programming is as much art as it is engineering and doesn't really
deserve the engineering moniker, especially given that most of us who work
in programming don't have the professional qualifications or certfications
equivalent to those who do real engineering. And no, Mickeysoft Certfied
Engineer doesn't count.

There's a whole spectrum of different complexities of programming, but
the closer you get to the metal the more you need to understand the
engineering function you are trying to provide.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 13:42:07 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:29:15 on Thu, 26 Nov
2015, d remarked:
"Software engineering" is another recent phrase. Its what used to be known
as programming but I guess that didn't have enough gravitas for some people.

Long ago there were "Systems analysts" who drew up the specifications
for what they thought needed doing, and programmers were just the
"brickies" putting it together.

Usually the specs were pretty high level though. The programmers still had
to fill in between the lines and then figure out how to get the machine to
do it.

There's a whole spectrum of different complexities of programming, but
the closer you get to the metal the more you need to understand the
engineering function you are trying to provide.

Perhaps it depends on the sphere. I would hope the people writing the software
for fly by wire have a bit more than just on the job training. OTOH I know
someone who worked in heavy machine tool programming - quite dangerous if it
goes wrong - and his only qualification was a standard BSc. The rest was on the
job.

--
Spud