This Bugzilla instance is a read-only archive of historic NetBeans bug reports. To report a bug in NetBeans please follow the project's instructions for reporting issues.
I'm not a native English speaker, but [Find Usages] looks awkward to mean [Find Uses].
+1 Check for translations, e.g. german: http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=usages
I disagree. "Usages" is appropriate, cf. meanings 2a and 1c in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usage of meanings 1a and 3 in http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usage. Its also the established vocabulary for this in other IDEs and tools (not only Java). "Find uses", on the other hand, has the predominant meaning of finding a (new) purpose for something. For example "find uses for method x" means to conceive of scenarios where method x would be useful. Having "Find Uses" instead of "Find Usages" would therefore read rather strange.
(In reply to comment #2) > I disagree. "Usages" is appropriate, cf. meanings 2a and 1c in > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usage 1c: IMO this covers the case where words are not used in there original meaning, e.g. using "cock" not for the animal, but for ... ;-) > Its also the established vocabulary for this in other IDEs and tools (not only Java). Spinach was rumoured to contain plenty of iron since centuries, because of an error on the decimal point in one single analyse. All others have copied the error and recommended spinach as child's food [1]. In german I would use following terms, compare the translations: Gebrauch - http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=Gebrauch Nutzung - http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=Nutzung Verwendung - http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=Verwendung > "Find uses", on the other hand, has the predominant meaning of finding a (new) > purpose for something. For example "find uses for method x" means to conceive > of scenarios where method x would be useful. For this meaning, in german I would use following terms, compare the translations: Verwendbarkeit - http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=Verwendbarkeit Anwendbarkeit - http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=Anwendbarkeit Nutzbarkeit - http://dict.leo.org/ende?search=Nutzbarkeit [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinach#Popeye_and_iron
(In reply to comment #2) > I disagree. "Usages" is appropriate, cf. meanings 2a and 1c in > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usage of meanings 1a and 3 in > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usage. Its also the established vocabulary for > this in other IDEs and tools (not only Java). 2a ("the action, amount, or mode of using <a decreased usage of electricity>") might be applicable here but only in the singular ("Find Usage"), so you cannot say "one usage here and one usage there", but you can say "the usage in this file is: one use here and one use there", or it might mean that you get to know on aggregate how many times the thing is used per file/package. 1c ("a method or manner of employing or applying something <gained practice in the use of the camera>") means, e.g., that you would get to know whether the thing is used to declare parameters or local variables or both, etc. The last sentence here ("established vocabulary") means that you would, e.g., jump over the edge of a cliff because you see others doing the same, or handicap the usability of OpenOffice just to better mimic Microsoft Office (another story). > > "Find uses", on the other hand, has the predominant meaning of finding a (new) > purpose for something. For example "find uses for method x" means to conceive > of scenarios where method x would be useful. Having "Find Uses" instead of > "Find Usages" would therefore read rather strange. You're almost inverting the meanings of "use" and "usage" (except that "use" *also* means other things than "acts of employing something"). When you buy a bottle of shower gel, it won't state just by number how many "usages" it is good for (although it may list two, i.e., hair and body), but how many "uses" it is good for (before the container is empty). This looked a bit strange to me when I first saw it (perhaps because the literal translation of "uses" to Dutch, "gebruiken", made me think of, well, "ways of using", which I didn't know already has the name "usage"), but that was just ignorance, so I had to look it up myself at the time, and it made perfect sense that way. It is not relevant that "usage" does not have the additional meaning of "purpose". So if you insist on "usage" instead of "use", say something like "List Usage", but *not* "Find Usages".
(In reply to comment #4) > So if you insist on "usage" instead of "use", say something like "List Usage", > but *not* "Find Usages". Or simply say "Find References" (like another IDE that shall not be named).
(In reply to comment #5) > Or simply say "Find References" (like another IDE that shall not be named). But this would not include e.g. Java keywords e.g. "private".
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Or simply say "Find References" (like another IDE that shall not be named). > > But this would not include e.g. Java keywords e.g. "private". Granted, although you can't list uses of keywords like "private" anyway (I just verified). Forget #6 if you will, I just wanted to offer another way out (#2 "established vocabulary [...] in other IDEs and tools").
(In reply to comment #7) > ... although you can't list uses of keywords like "private" anyway (I just > verified). Verified too. I had in memory, that this was possible, maybe at some release ago. But there is a "bug" too: Using "Find References" on *int* sample; results in searching references of 'sample', but should be disabled instead. But IMO it would be an interesting enhancement --> bug 215082.
I'm sorry, but I will be closing this as wontfix. The name Find Usages was introduced a long time ago and is currently well known among developers. The meaning of the name does not clash with another feature in the product, or hint that the functionality behind the action would be something different.
(In reply to comment #9) > I'm sorry, but I will be closing this as wontfix. The name Find Usages was > introduced a long time ago and is currently well known among developers. The > meaning of the name does not clash with another feature in the product, or hint > that the functionality behind the action would be something different. This is absurd. Why would a long-lived defect gain the status of a feature just because it was never simply fixed before? The only rational approach here would be to consult an English technical-writing expert or English linguist, not to let something linger because the development team just doesn't care (about some foreign country's spoken language).
Another advantage on [Find Uses] vs. [Find Usages] is, that it occupies less space on Button labels.
(In reply to comment #9) > The name Find Usages was introduced a long time ago ... ... but also was objected long a time ago ;-)
I also don't see a problem with using "Find Usages" but I have contacted a friend of mine who is an English linguist at Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic. We will see what his point of view is.
(In reply to comment #13) > I also don't see a problem with using "Find Usages" but I have contacted a > friend of mine who is an English linguist at Masaryk University in Brno, Czech > Republic. We will see what his point of view is. Great initiative! The ideal though would be to consult one who is a native speaker, and initially without priming him/her (about the current choice, competing products...). I don't know one of those, but perhaps somebody at Sun/Oracle U.S.A. does?
He is not a native speaker but on the other hand he will give us an unbiased opinion not being a developer himself. Why an American speaker would be better than a British one? Wouldn't it be subjective too?
(In reply to comment #15) > Why an American speaker would be better than a British one? > Wouldn't it be subjective too? +1 American English should be seen as kind of dialect against the original Oxford English. ;-) On the other hand, American English is prevalent in IT terms, e.g. dialog vs. dialogue, color vs. colour.
(In reply to comment #15) > He is not a native speaker but on the other hand he will give us an unbiased > opinion not being a developer himself. Why an American speaker would be better > than a British one? Wouldn't it be subjective too? I wrote "Sun/Oracle U.S.A." (as an obvious lead for someone associated with NetBeans) merely because that's its main location, and what they normally speak there is also benignly called English. ;-)
(In reply to comment #13) > I have contacted a friend of mine who is an English linguist at Masaryk > University in Brno, Czech Republic. We will see what his point of view is. Any news from your friend? I'm curious.
Unfortunately, he is on vacation from 1st of July till 15th of August. This academia has no responsibility... :)
So, I have finally an update on this from my friend. First of all he recommends to follow the practice in the industry i.e. try to avoid inventing a new term. If this is for some reason not applicable he suggested few words like "locations", "positions" or "occurrences". He thinks this would be much better than "uses/usages" this bug is about. :)
(In reply to Jiri Kovalsky from comment #20) > If this is for some reason not applicable he suggested > few words like "locations", "positions" or "occurrences". He thinks this > would be much better than "uses/usages" this bug is about. :) "Uses" has the advantage, that it needs less space e.g. on output tabs. Did he agree, that "Usage" literally has different and therefore "wrong" meaning?
The "practice in the industry" is not as NetBeans devs and users may think. As example please notice the summary of this bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8041679
OK, let's vote then. Anyone with strong opinion, please cast your vote here: http://doodle.com/eh8xkfeurahpycq4
Even though I've cast my vote, I don't think that a poll is likely to reveal the right answer, because it will be heavily biased by users familiar with the status quo but not necessarily having native linguistic knowledge. However, the timing is almost right, because I'm on the last half day of a developers conference in the U.S.A., so maybe I'll ask some random people about this topic. :-)
Please ask and let us know here. I am aware that even asking ALL developers would not end up findhing the right answer. We would only get objectively most preferred solution. :)
(In reply to rafschietekat from comment #24) > Even though I've cast my vote, I don't think that a poll is likely to reveal > the right answer, because it will be heavily biased by users familiar with > the status quo but not necessarily having native linguistic knowledge. It happens as same to me. It took me some days to assimilate with "Find Uses" > However, the timing is almost right, because I'm on the last half day of a > developers conference in the U.S.A., so maybe I'll ask some random people > about this topic. :-) Great investigation. (In reply to Jiri Kovalsky from comment #25) > I am aware that even asking ALL developers would not end up finding the right > answer. We would only get objectively most preferred solution. :) I fear too, it's a matter of habit. Ask the flies. 1000s can not err.
2 for "usages" (1 U.S.A., 1 Australia), 1 for "uses" (U.S.A.), ... and 1 who in his talk used "usages" exactly like what others here say "uses" means (sort of like "purposes")! No time for more, sorry.
If the German translation is inappropriate, change the German translation.
Apple Xcode apparently does not have this functionality. IntelliJ IDEA (or at least Android Studio) also calls it "Find Usages". But I still think that the arbitrators should be people who know their language, not just programmers familiar with IDEs that may very well have just copied each other. I remember a long time ago when I was myself briefly confused by a statement somewhat like "For 50 Uses" (I remember neither the exact words nor the number) on a bottle of shower gel, but I'm quite sure they meant 50 occurrences of washing probably oneself in the shower (not oneself, someone else, the dog, the car, ...). What are single-use products: meant to be used only once, or suitable for only one way of using them? Obviously it's the first meaning, either because you get a new one each time (look up "single-use plastic bag"), or because they come with the product (look up "single-use plastic bottle"), or because they are only intended for a single use (6 letters, starts with 'c', and it's not inflating them that is advised against), or because they only support a single use ("single-use flash bulb"), or perhaps another reason. Look up "how many uses of the word", and you'll find both meanings being implied. If I look up "how many usages of the word", Google helpfully suggests: 'Did you mean: "how many uses of the word"', and the reason is probably 9 vs. 4.110.000 results. Obviously counting is firmly part of the usage of "use". Still with Google, if I look up just "usage", in the definition box I see examples like "the increased usage of private cars" (note the singular), "there are various derivative usages" (plural used for multiple "[ways] in which a word or phrase is normally and correctly used"), etc. Not a hint that "usage" might refer to a single occurrence of using. On Merriam-Webster (hey, how long have they been "an Encyclopaedia Britannica company"?), "the act of using something" is listed in the blue box at the top, but it doesn't say whether this is a single occurrence of using or the general fact that something is being used as opposed to not (I think it's the latter), and it is not repeated in the "*Full* Definition of USAGE" (my *emphasis*), *and* there's not a single example with the plural form. I see an abundance of evidence that the usage (way of using) of the word "usage" in NetBeans (and IntelliJ IDEA) is misguided, as was marking this as "RESOLVED/WONTFIX" (although I'm not going to start a status update war about this).