Exact meaning of the "hello world"

[Eugene Muzychenko]

Hello!

I have a question to native English-speaking people. In the "hello
world" greeting, what meaning the "world" has: "all", "people",
"friends" or "whole world", "planet", "universe"?

Here in Russia, "hello world" is usually translated as "привет, мир"
that means the "hello whole world", "hello universe" or "hello
planet". I'm afraid that the correct meaning should be like "hello
all", "hello people" or similar.

Similarly, the "world" in UNIX access rights assignment means sooner
the "all" than the "whole world" or "planet".

Could somebody please explain?

Regards,
Eugene

[Gordon Burditt]

> I have a question to native English-speaking people. In the "hello
> world" greeting, what meaning the "world" has: "all", "people",
> "friends" or "whole world", "planet", "universe"?
>
> Here in Russia, "hello world" is usually translated as "привет, мир"
> that means the "hello whole world", "hello universe" or "hello
> planet". I'm afraid that the correct meaning should be like "hello
> all", "hello people" or similar.

There isn't any exact meaning, but people generally say "hello" to
other people, not planets, the universe, etc. Some exceptions are
made for pets. I'd probably interpret it as "hello, everyone",
where "everyone" refers to all people, or at least all people
gathered around the computer screen that can see it.

Given how the Internet has developed, I suspect that nowadays
it would be written as a classic scam:

Hello, suckers! I am a Nigerian prince who wishes to make an
investment in your country, and I am looking for someone who can
help me transfer money out of my country. After all, everyone in
Nigeria poops US currenty. Please send your banking information
and credit card information to nigeria...@identitytheft.com.
Since I don't know anything about international money transactions,
I'll give you half of the money, and won't mention that the
transaction I'm proposing may carry the death penalty in your
country (especially the USA) for money-laundering for terrorists.

> Similarly, the "world" in UNIX access rights assignment means sooner
> the "all" than the "whole world" or "planet".

"World" access permissions in UNIX refer more to "everyone else"
than "all", since it is possible to use them to give read permission
to a file to everyone EXCEPT a specific group (mode 0604, which may
seem silly but there could be practical uses for it).

Those permissions also extend only to users of a particular machine;
they don't cover users of other machines.

[Eugene Muzychenko]

Thank you for the comment. So I think I'm correct that "hello world"
is addressed only to people who can see the output, not to the whole
world. :)

Most russian technical translators, translating the "hello world",
interpret the "world" using its main meaning ("whole world", "planet",
"Earth", "Universe"). I told them that other meanings should be used
instead - "people", "community", "all", "everyone", "everybody", but
some of them object to it.

[Rainer Weikusat]

Eugene Muzychenko <eug...@muzychenko.net> writes:
> I have a question to native English-speaking people. In the "hello
> world" greeting, what meaning the "world" has: "all", "people",
> "friends" or "whole world", "planet", "universe"?

I'm not a native speaker, however, I think I can provide some inside
here: This is a newly-born program opening its eyes for the first time
and noticing that there is a world around it, just like the initial
screaming of a baby, and the meaning is roughly "I'm alive now!". At
least the English noun 'world' (AFAIK, and also the German Substantiv
Welt) means "the set of everything I can experience which isn't me".

[Casper H.S. Dik]

I think you can equate it with a newborn's first cries.

It is generally used as part of the first message send by a newly
developed system.

Casper

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Native (Commonwealth-, not US-) English speaker here, and this is the
one I would go with.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.

[John McCue]

Eugene Muzychenko <eug...@muzychenko.net> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have a question to native English-speaking people. In the "hello
> world" greeting, what meaning the "world" has: "all", "people",
> "friends" or "whole world", "planet", "universe"?
>

To me, 'Hello World' is like 'a being born announcement',
or in a way it is like saying 'Hi, I am here can you see me ?'.

<snip>

>
> Similarly, the "world" in UNIX access rights assignment means sooner
> the "all" than the "whole world" or "planet".

In this case I would say world equates to the full environment
'you' happen to be in or have access to.

> Could somebody please explain?

I gave it my best shot :)

> Regards,
> Eugene

John

[Ben Finney]

Eugene Muzychenko <eug...@muzychenko.net> writes:

> I have a question to native English-speaking people. In the "hello
> world" greeting, what meaning the "world" has: "all", "people",
> "friends" or "whole world", "planet", "universe"?

The tradition of a “Hello, world!” program is documented at
<URL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello,_world>. You might find it
useful to read the corresponding page in the Wikipedia for your native
language.

> Here in Russia, "hello world" is usually translated as "привет, мир"
> that means the "hello whole world", "hello universe" or "hello
> planet". I'm afraid that the correct meaning should be like "hello
> all", "hello people" or similar.

In English, “world” is commonly used to mean different things
<URL:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/world>: all that exists, or a
planet, or one's environment, or all conscious beings, etc.

> Similarly, the "world" in UNIX access rights assignment means sooner
> the "all" than the "whole world" or "planet".
>
> Could somebody please explain?

As a NSoE, I think the “world” in a “hello, world” greeting refers to
many of those meanings simultaneously. It is a greeting from the
(fanciful) being that has just been born: to every other being, to the
universe, to the planet, to all of nature.

--
\ “In the long run, the utility of all non-Free software |
`\ approaches zero. All non-Free software is a dead end.” —Mark |
_o__) Pilgrim, 2006 |
Ben Finney

[JohnF]

And, tell me, how do these russian technical translators
translate "Get a life." ?
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j...@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

[Ben Finney]

JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:

> And, tell me, how do these russian technical translators translate
> "Get a life." ?

You may not find the work of translators interesting, but please don't
dismiss the value of taking one's work seriously.

--
\ “Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who |
`\ speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” —Ambrose |
_o__) Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906 |
Ben Finney

[Rainer Weikusat]

If the 'life' you have gotten is one of the usual 'working
middle-class ones', regular work times, no real responsibilty for
anything, regularly paid, free weekends, holidays etc, be happy that
you've gotten it and remember that you were lucky and not outstanding.

OTOH, that is pretty much the same as 'grow a brain', something which
generally doesn't happen ...

[Eugene Muzychenko]

On Mar 23, 7:46 pm, Casper H.S. Dik <Casper....@OrSPaMcle.COM> wrote:

> I think you can equate it with a newborn's first cries.

I understand that it CAN be equated. The question is what exactly
Ritchie and Kernigan meant by that. I'm afraid they didn't think about
newborn's screams. :)

[Eugene Muzychenko]

On Mar 24, 6:42 am, John McCue <jmc...@jmclin0.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
wrote:

> > Similarly, the "world" in UNIX access rights assignment means sooner
> > the "all" than the "whole world" or "planet".
>
> In this case I would say world equates to the full environment
> 'you' happen to be in or have access to.

Do you mean that the "world" access specifier could be related
something other than people? :) How, for example, cats or vegetables
could use their access rights to a UNIX system? :)

[Ralf Fassel]

* Eugene Muzychenko <eug...@muzychenko.net>

| How, for example, cats or vegetables could use their access rights to
| a UNIX system? :)

Just google for "cats keyboard computer"...

R'

[Rainer Weikusat]

When executed, the program will print its message irregardless of any
recipients.

[BGB]

well, maybe in the case of a newborn screaming baby:
put them on the phone;
they will then screech out the phone number for an ISP;
upon hearing the tone, will initiate a V.92 handshake;
it will then remotely log into the system via SSH, and transmit,
compile, and execute, a program.

this is because the human brain just so happens to be compatible with
dial-up modem technology.


cats are similar, except they will use pulse-code dialing. or, at least,
when not directly typing on the keyboard, which can have effects
anywhere from sending people to/from cyberspace (by them flying
into/out-of a CRT display), to infiltrating remote government systems,
to making potentially covert changes to ones' source code. most results
are annoying though, but it is hard to keep cats off the keyboard...


vegetables, however, require either the use of fiber optic connections
(for green leafy plants, given that they are optically-based), or metal
probes in the case of potatoes (however, this experience will leave them
forever transformed, into either a large robot or sentient AI core...).

they will then be in control of nearly anything even remotely mechanical
or electronic (computers, cars, cables, power cords, levers, bicycle
chains, ...).

person gets attacked by a ball of yarn and some knitting needles and
turned into a remote-controlled doll-robot thing (with a quilt-work head
and glowing button eyes), faithfully carrying out the will of "the head
of lettuce" (which by this point will have gained many additional fiber
optic connections, and an automated defense system).


luckily at least (for the person hoping to stand up for themselves),
nearly everything even vaguely electronic or mechanical is made out of
explosives, and so will explode violently when hit with a pipe or crowbar.

leading to a final showdown with the then human-form 15-foot-tall
lettuce mecha in an abandoned factory, with unstable cat-walks (prone to
collapse without warning) and flows of molten metal, random
flame-spewing, pipes filled with pressurized steam, and lots of smoke.

it is then defeated by being kicked into a large open-top vat of molten
metal, as the hero hangs from a chain above the vat, lucky to have won
this battle and/or saved the world.


or such...

[Michael Press]

In article <87r4wf4...@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>,

`Irregardless' is not standard English, though it
will not go away. It confuses `irrespective' and `regardless'.

irrespective:
Without regard for conditions, circumstances, or consequences;
unbiased; independent; impartial; as, an irrespective judgment.

regardless:
Having no regard; heedless; careless; as,
regardless of life, consequences, dignity.

--
Michael Press

[Barry Margolin]

In article <rubrum-549E39....@news.albasani.net>,

Are you really resurrecting a 2-month-old thread just for a grammar
flame?

My dictionary describes it as "informal". Since Usenet is an informal
medium, it should be OK in this context.

--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Nomen Nescio]

Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <87r4wf4...@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>,
> Rainer Weikusat <rwei...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
>
> > Eugene Muzychenko <eug...@muzychenko.net> writes:
> > > On Mar 24, 6:42 am, John McCue <jmc...@jmclin0.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Similarly, the "world" in UNIX access rights assignment means sooner
> > >> > the "all" than the "whole world" or "planet".
> > >>
> > >> In this case I would say world equates to the full environment
> > >> 'you' happen to be in or have access to.
> > >
> > > Do you mean that the "world" access specifier could be related
> > > something other than people? :) How, for example, cats or vegetables
> > > could use their access rights to a UNIX system? :)
> >
> > When executed, the program will print its message irregardless of any
> > recipients.
>
> `Irregardless' is not standard English, though it
> will not go away. It confuses `irrespective' and `regardless'.

No shit. It sounds to me like a double negative, in the end meaning "not
regardless." It's like the idiots say, "I could care less!" I always think
"then why don't you, you stupid bastard?" ("I couldn't care less" is what
they probably meant.)

Another one is "codes" for code. Code is like sheep. One sheep is a
sheep. Two sheep are sheep, etc. I write code. I wrote a bunch of
code. This is going to take a lot of code. I sold ALL the code. You get the
idea.

Yet another one that won't seem to die is "applicative". I tend to find that
"afflicative" if you will. "Applicative" is also not an English word. It's a
Romance language bastardization of an English bastardization of a Romance
language rendering that came back to haunt we English speakers. Oh
well. Nice if this would be our biggest problem.

[Michael Press]

In article <barmar-C14C4C....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <rubrum-549E39....@news.albasani.net>,
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <87r4wf4...@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>,
> > Rainer Weikusat <rwei...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Eugene Muzychenko <eug...@muzychenko.net> writes:

> > > > On Mar 24, 6:42 am, John McCue <jmc...@jmclin0.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>

> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> > Similarly, the "world" in UNIX access rights assignment means sooner
> > > >> > the "all" than the "whole world" or "planet".
> > > >>
> > > >> In this case I would say world equates to the full environment
> > > >> 'you' happen to be in or have access to.
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean that the "world" access specifier could be related
> > > > something other than people? :) How, for example, cats or vegetables
> > > > could use their access rights to a UNIX system? :)
> > >
> > > When executed, the program will print its message irregardless of any
> > > recipients.
> >
> > `Irregardless' is not standard English, though it
> > will not go away. It confuses `irrespective' and `regardless'.
> >
> > irrespective:
> > Without regard for conditions, circumstances, or consequences;
> > unbiased; independent; impartial; as, an irrespective judgment.
> >
> > regardless:
> > Having no regard; heedless; careless; as,
> > regardless of life, consequences, dignity.
>
> Are you really resurrecting a 2-month-old thread just for a grammar
> flame?

What do you say? Sound the way flames do?
I assert your response temperature is much
higher than mine.

> My dictionary describes it as "informal".

And I said `standard.' See the difference?

> Since Usenet is an informal
> medium, it should be OK in this context.

I addressed myself to a non-native English speaker;
not somebody I can assume knows the difference.

--
Michael Press

[Rainer Weikusat]

Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rwei...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:

[...]

>> When executed, the program will print its message irregardless of
>> any recipients.
>
> `Irregardless' is not standard English, though it
> will not go away. It confuses `irrespective' and `regardless'.
>
> irrespective:
> Without regard for conditions, circumstances, or consequences;
> unbiased; independent; impartial; as, an irrespective judgment.
>
> regardless:
> Having no regard; heedless; careless; as,
> regardless of life, consequences, dignity.

Thank you for telling me that.

[J0ax88]

I might be rembering this wrong, but I thought that in "Condensed Pascal" (aka the Soup Can Book), Doug Cooper says that "Hello World" is a line from a classic movie.

[Michael Press]

In article <rubrum-5B260B....@news.albasani.net>,

Barry's got nothing in response.

--
Michael Press

[Barry Margolin]

In article <rubrum-43DDA4....@news.albasani.net>,

Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Barry's got nothing in response.

It's been 2 f'ing years, you're just noticing this now?

[Michael Press]

In article <barmar-39C321....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> In article <rubrum-43DDA4....@news.albasani.net>,
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Barry's got nothing in response.
>
> It's been 2 f'ing years, you're just noticing this now?

You were so enamored of the 2 month deferred reply
that I figured a 2 year deferred reply would please
you even more.

Still, you excised the article content and the questions
you avoid. Care to answer them now?

In article <rubrum-5B260B....@news.albasani.net>,

Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <barmar-C14C4C....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> In article <rubrum-549E39....@news.albasani.net>,

--
Michael Press

[ojack...@gmail.com]

On 2014-07-26, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <barmar-39C321....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> In article <rubrum-43DDA4....@news.albasani.net>,
>> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Barry's got nothing in response.
>>
>> It's been 2 f'ing years, you're just noticing this now?
>
> You were so enamored of the 2 month deferred reply
> that I figured a 2 year deferred reply would please
> you even more.
>
> Still, you excised the article content and the questions
> you avoid. Care to answer them now?

Don't be a fag, Mike.

[Michael Press]

In article <6c5c5ebc-b564-40fa...@googlegroups.com>,

Are you Barry's mouthpiece?

--
Michael Press

[Barry Margolin]

In article <rubrum-DE5007....@news.albasani.net>,

Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Still, you excised the article content and the questions
> you avoid. Care to answer them now?

No, I don't see the point. It was a stupid conversation then, it's no
more important now.