It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
If it’s referring to something like a mother/daughter circuitboard, I’ll use that. If it’s a host/client connection, I’ll use that. If it’s a primary/backup redundancy situation, I’ll use that. And those are just a few examples. There is rarely a good reason to use master/slave nowadays, since most situations already have better descriptors to begin with.
Can’t we just change “slave” to “servant” and carry on?
You could but he has a point. The last time I used master/slave was for IDE drives which was 15+ years ago, and even then only because I happened upon a really old system using IDE drives.
The only thing I see left is “Master” by itself, like master branch. But that makes me think of like a jujitsu master which sounds really cool lol.
Yeah, that definition of “master” is different than master/slave from what I can tell. Think the master copy of an audio recording. There are plenty of perfectly legit uses of “master,” but there’s no reason to use master/slave in this day and age. It was stupid to start doing so to begin with.
Especially with how we say releases are “cut” from the master branch, it makes a ton of sense.
There are plenty of perfectly legit uses of “master,”
Like the Digmaster™.
