[flagged]
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/runtime
The subject here, is academic research involving algorithmic complexity. What papers do you know of that refer to algorithmic complexity and “runtime”?
Context matters. It is incorrect in this context.
https://arxiv.org/search/cs?query=runtime&searchtype=all&abs...
In any case Quanta Magazine is not a formal academic journal, and neither is hacker news. We're having an informal discussion about a popular science article.
I said “run time” relates to algorithmic complexity. That’s one definition.
The other definition is also valid in research, as it relates to environments. Like Java.
The first result in your query is an example of the second definition. It is not an example showing these are interchangeable.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14645
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13770
https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12253
Precision doesn’t matter in this case? I disagree.
It was a dick move and pretentious to call it out?
Maybe so, it was not my intent and I apologize if it was the case.
There isn't a fixed consistent usage, even in the academic literature. More importantly though it doesn't matter which you use, as long as its obvious what you're talking about.
Language matters when you want to get across. (and so does context).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-023-00589-x
Here is one in Nature Physics
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02325-8
Here is one in Nature Precedings
https://www.nature.com/articles/npre.2011.5593.1
And here is one in Nature Communications
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44008-1
It isn't a matter of a lack of due care - it just really really doesn't matter which term you use as long as your meaning is clear.
The reason is much simpler: many (most) researchers are not native English speakers. For example, my doctoral advisor (who knows English well, but is not a native speaker) could hardly help me with questions concerning more subtle aspects of English terms used in the research area. He told me that hardly anybody cares. Even more: when you look for examples, you always have to consider the situation that a word is used wrongly because the author who comes from an arbitrary country does not know better.
Even more: sometimes I do ask native English speakers about subtle aspects of the English language. My impression from this is: while it is not uncommon among native German speakers to deeply analyze German words, various native English speakers independently told me that doing such an analysis "is not how the English language works" (or how native English speakers think about their language).
I'm tempted to question this idea that English speakers are just unconcerned with their own language, but then I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind when you speak of "deep [linguistic] analysis" (or a lack thereof). Can you provide an example?
Those references don’t seem to be about environments like Java.
Also worth keeping in mind that usage defines what words mean. If a given usage is common, that makes it de-facto correct, and eventually the dictionary will catch up. This one reason why the dictionaries keep adding new definitions.
Since you’re incorrect about the definitions, and since the meaning of the word runtime was correct in the top comment and understood by everyone reading, and never confused in this thread, the context does not matter here in this case.
I’ve learned from a lot of experience being wrong that the problem with trying to police language is you’re almost never right. Words are beautifully fluid and have multiple and surprising meanings. It’s common for people to mistakenly think the meaning they know is the only meaning, and not be aware of the wider history and usage. So, speaking from experience in the role of English pedant, and getting rightly smacked down, be careful or you end up on the wrong side of your corrections.
There are, instead, languages that are NP-complete, for which we hypothesize that there are no polynomial-time algorithms for, because that would imply P=NP. It's a further unproven hypothesis that NP-complete languages have no sub-exponential time algorithms (the "exponential time hypothesis").
Take a look at the Rust's crate.io mess, for example, where people misuse "crate" all the time.
For practical cases it is not that important what the worst-case complexity is, but rather what the expected complexity is of solving problems that occur in practice.
As always, a guaranteed way to make friends.