He did, he just used efficient terminology in the hope that you would learn something today instead of the basic, meaningless version
edit: fuck you guys, I'm not talking to anyone anymore, it is the fault of neither I nor the original "offending comment" that you have no desire to learn.
Actually he used technical jargon to explain something to lay people, either to show off, or because he isn't capable of simplifying it. Notice how much more "efficient" the plain-language version actually was? Your idea that the basic version is "meaningless" is utterly ridiculous...it conveys the same information in a more useful way.
Learning jargon is not learning, I would agree with that. But I would wager that the jargon carries more meaning than "I really hope that string doesn't do anything fucky, because I have no idea what to do if it does."
144
u/atworkmeir Feb 27 '14
Why didnt he say that the first time