Re: Vocabulary matter: Component vs Element vs Item

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Fri, 26 Jul 2013 20:29:05 +0200, Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@aol.com>  
a écrit:

> On Friday, July 26, 2013 10:24:55 AM UTC-7, Charles H. Sampson wrote:
>
>>      As a result, I don't feel competent to comment on any technical
>> issues here, even from a historical perspective. However, I don't see
>> that "component", "element" and "item" are at all related in plain
>> English.
>
> Looking it up in an (American) English dictionary, www.m-w.com: Both  
> "component" and "element" seem to mainly refer to a "constituent part"  
> of something else.
Merriam Webster seems to implies the same.

> "Element" sometimes carries the connotation of being the most  
> rudimentary (or "elementary") part, that can't be broken down into  
> something else,
UML and software literature seems to agree with this: components are more  
big things than elements.

> but not always.
Yes, a famous exception is an XML element.

> (The elements in the periodic table were thought to be just those,  
> substances that couldn't be broken down into smaller things, until  
> protons and neutrons and electrons were discovered.)  "Item" has one  
> similar definition, "a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or  
> series"; but another relevant definition is "an object of attention,  
> concern, or interest",
Merriam Webster says there is a now obsolete meaning, where Item was  
designating a Warning or Hint.


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University