• Ramenator@lemmy.world
      24·
      11 months ago

      “Dammit, for some reason I can’t kill all the children, a few of them always survive, I must have a leak somewhere”

    • meow
      6·
      11 months ago

      I think that’s why we’re supposed to call it main now

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        9·
        11 months ago

        “master” in version control has no corresponding “slave,” but nevertheless the “master/slave” terminology is the reason why GitHub switched to “main” and everyone else followed suit

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        11 months ago

        The naming isn’t great still… I usually use ReadWrite instance and replica. I really wish we had some more concise replacement terms.

        • Kogasa@programming.dev
          7·
          11 months ago

          Main is the replacement for master for git branches, not the general master-slave pattern. Wikipedia suggests:

          Other replacement names include controller, default, director, host, initiator, leader, manager, primary, principal, root; and for slave: agent, client, device, performer, peripheral, replica, responder, satellite, secondary, subordinate, and worker.

          I usually use controller / worker if it’s a local process or controller / remote if the subordinates are on different hosts.

          • _edge@discuss.tchncs.de
            2·
            11 months ago

            I know I’m old, but never found that calling a dumb machine a slave to be problemtic. The thing is supposed to obey my orders. It’s in the code and code is law.

            I’m also not American and never owned slaves.