Hacker News Reader

Comment by eigenket | Hacker News Reader

Fine, I edited "most" in my previous comment to "many". There are still plenty of examples (even on the first page) where the "runtime" is used to mean algorithmic complexity

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.14645

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13770

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12253

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.12205

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10856

View on HN

I’ll respond to what I think are the real points:

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.

My point is that I am a researcher (in quantum information theory) and I've published a couple of papers on quantum computing which talk about algorithmic complexity. In once case I've been told to by an editor to change run time to runtime, and in another case I've been told (by an editor at a different journal) to change run-time to run time.

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.

Since you think it was a dick move, then maybe consider that.

Language matters when you want to get across. (and so does context).

So, many researchers don't use terms with due care. And many article are rejected by Nature.

I don't really get the love for Nature but here is an example that uses "runtime" in this sense in Nature Computational Science

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.

TIL Nature is failing to help the world to have more clear scientific communication. What a shame!

> So, many researchers don't use terms with due care. And many article are rejected by Nature.

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).

> 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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com