The story I heard when I was in music school was that the word jazz came from the days of slavery. It was intended as a coded way to let others know that there would be prayers and music that evening (e.g. Jass Tonight) but the 'S' would be flipped around. The word stood for "Jesus Amen Save our Souls".
Evan Morris, author of "The Word Detective" column that used to run in papers and alt weeklies, used to perennially comment that acronyms in English were quite rare until roughly WW1-WW2, and as such etymologies involving them ("to insure promptness", "port out starboard home", etc.) are virtually always false.
More to the point, TFA lays out various evidence why this particular theory is unlikely.
The same. For whatever reason false etymologies based on acronyms abound, with "tip" and "posh" being among the better-known. There's also "for unlawful carnal knowledge" for fuck, "gentlemen only ladies forbidden" for golf, "constable on patrol" for cop, etc. I've even heard people claim rap derives from "rhythm and poetry". But basically they're all bunk, apart from words of quite recent coinage.
(I might add that tons of false etymologies without acronyms float around as well - "mind your Ps and Qs" being related to pints and quarts, stuff like that. Morris used to blame tour guides as being the worst culprits of keeping such things alive.)
Tip is old enough (1755) that they where the same word.
The cynic would be mostly right, at least for much of the history of English, as for hundreds of years insure and ensure were simply spelling variants, and had no more difference between them than theatre and theater.
However, in the middle of the 19th century some began to find fault with this, and proposed assigning meanings to ensure, insure, and assure in more orderly fashion.
"Port Out, Starboard Home" by Michael Quinion is a nice book about 'folk etymologies' that covers these and many more. He gives the real origin where it's known.
As the article mention, everyone have their favorite theory. This one sounds particularly unbelievable though. "Jesus Amen Save our Souls" is not even a meaningful sentence. So it is likely a backronym from JASS rather than the other way around.
I would immediately jump to unbelieving due to anecdotal nature of this claim but these are kinds of stories that tend to be propagated through stories told
Interesting observations. As someone who came from an enterprise Java background and moved into a startup shop, it is tremendously dispiriting and disappointing to see so much disdain for people with backgrounds like mine.
I wouldn't trade my enterprise experience for anything. It gave me a deep appreciation for the craft of software development, and an amazing introduction to complex, well-designed systems (not to mention some terrible ones as well). Without that opportunity to learn process and best practices, I would never have been successful elsewhere in my career.
Of course, you'll always find seat-fillers at big companies, but I think that'd be true no matter where you go. Bad hiring decisions are real, but should not discount or destroy the many great people who grow up in enterprise environments and can make meaningful contributions.
With all due respect to the "move fast, break things" evident in many startups, it leaves behind a big technical mess for the people who help transition the company out of startup phases. I'd bet most would do well to incorporate a few more stodgy enterprise devs earlier in the process to help steer the software toward a sustainable path.
> With all due respect to the "move fast, break things" evident in many startups, it leaves behind a big technical mess for the people who help transition the company out of startup phases. I'd bet most would do well to incorporate a few more stodgy enterprise devs earlier in the process to help steer the software toward a sustainable path.
I agree to a point, and tried to address it above. It's a tradeoff -- do it right now for a big payoff later. However, you have to survive to the payoff. So maybe you spend a bunch of time doing it right, and then die when you haven't actually sold anything yet.
I'd rather have a company that made it to the "we have to clean up our technical debt" phase then building something beautiful that never sees the light of day.
> I agree to a point, and tried to address it above. It's a tradeoff -- do it right now for a big payoff later. However, you have to survive to the payoff. So maybe you spend a bunch of time doing it right, and then die when you haven't actually sold anything yet.
There's a balance to be had, though. I've said it downthread but I'll only mention it again here because it's relevant - I'm a manager in the "enterprise" (or more accurately, I'm a bit more senior than that, but whatever). My perspective doesn't really fall to either extreme:
Coming out of the gate and addressing the unknown (to keep it reasonably similar to startups), I want to move fast, iterate, fail fast and other cliches. Eventually, though, if we're as smart as we think we are, the unknown shrinks within the scope of the problem we're trying to solve and we move to a more manageable pace - with process, standards and all of that. I don't see burn and churn as a long term strategy for my products or my people.
Say what you will about enterprise, but we can't be total idiots. There is complexity in what we do - many are managing projects or programs that would essentially be a startup's entire product. For every unicorn, there are likely thousands of startups that will not grow as large as a single enterprise product. (talking generally here)
I'm not saying we're better or anything, but I'd hope that an enterprise dev's resume doesn't go into the shredder just because they spent years at a large company. Consider that they're probably getting paid pretty well, probably get stock (or at least the discount on purchase of stock) that is already publicly traded and liquid, weeks of paid time off, all sorts of benefits and little concern about job loss due to insolvency. If an enterprise dev is telling a startup they want to work there, it's very likely that they believe in the product or simply want to work at the faster pace, and they'll have as much to teach you as you have to teach them.
The compensation structure has been significantly revamped since then. Partnership isn't what it used to be, so people don't get the big payments like they used to.
Agreed. Currently working with a host of legacy ruby projects that we're slowly migrating to elixir. We've used hack-arounds to leverage the existing ruby projects up until now. If this library proves to be production-worthy, it'll be a great bridge for addressing some technical debt.
Erlectricity, from what I understand, was used extensively in at least one iteration of github's architecture. It has spent a lot of time in production deployments.
