4

So, how would you say "object oriented programming" in Latin?

How would you translate "object" as an adjective? Would that be "obiectivus"? Or would "obiectivus" be "objective" (as in "not subjective", "not dependent on the person observing it")?

How would you say "oriented" in Latin? The word "oriented" is Latin in origin, but it has changed the meaning completely. "Oriens" means "east" in Latin. "Oriented" originally meant "determining where the east is", so it shifted its meaning to "directed". In the phrase "object oriented programming" it means more-or-less "revolving around".

"Programming" would, I guess, be "programmare", or, perhaps better, "ars programmandi".

My attempt would be "ars programmandi directa ad obiecta".

2
  • 2
    Not an answer to the question. I prefer "programmatare" for "to program" because "programma" has a 't' in its stem ("programmat-is"), instead of "programmare" derived perhaps from Italian. Some argue that "programmatare" is also weird, though. Apr 25, 2023 at 10:26
  • 2
    @KotobaTrilyNgian I wonder if a better coinage would be something like praescribo, but that has other connotations!
    – cmw
    Apr 25, 2023 at 13:27

1 Answer 1

4

This answer has been substantially edited after having been accepted

I am neither an expert nor a fan of Recens Latinitas, but my job is to manage computing services and I have a pretty clear idea of what object-orientation means. I think I can attempt an answer.

  1. Programming is already a problem. Of course, the rerum gerendarum ratio proposed in 1993 by Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis is unusable. I agree with Kotoba Truly Ngian’s comment that a good option would be to invent programmatare (and programmatatio), but there are the already established terms programmare (from Vocabula Computatralia) and programmatura, so we use them. All such words are weird (beginning with computatrum) but they must be, because the weird thing is to use Latin to discuss such topics in the first place.

  2. Object-oriented does not mean directed to objects but using objects, and object classes, in preference to other data structures. The translation directa ad obiecta in my opinion misses the point: objects aren’t the goal of such programming, they are its building blocks. We already have the barbarous adjective computatralis, programmatura obiectivalis is not much worse. Indeed, one of the object-oriented languages derived from C is called Objective C. I’d reserve programmatura obiectiva for possible future more general uses. The OP’s wording “revolving around” had me think of another possible invention, programmatura obiectipeta, following the example of centripetus, but I’m feeling I’m stepping into murkier and murkier waters...

5
  • 1
    Not that I will defend the Latinity of the choice per se, but programming has been covered here and here.
    – cmw
    Apr 25, 2023 at 13:29
  • 1
    @cmw Yes, you are right. I have changed my answer from programmatatio to programmatura, according to the useful links you give.
    – Dario
    Apr 25, 2023 at 13:53
  • 1
    I should have done more research before answering.
    – Dario
    Apr 25, 2023 at 14:00
  • 2
    Well, "object-oriented" hasn't been covered yet, so you're in the clear there, and it's not like my answers are absolutely definitive. It's a modern tech, there will likely be no definitive answer. I'm also not in love with the term in English. Even "object" is not really descriptive. A philologist did not coin the term, that's for sure.
    – cmw
    Apr 25, 2023 at 16:10
  • @cmw I also think "object-oriented" is not a good term. I posted an anecdote about it on Reddit: reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/zu7qj0/… Apr 26, 2023 at 14:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.