Re:Phrase origin: Why do we "call" functions?
by throwaway889900 on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @04:43PM
(#44514545)
Shame we can't use `cast`, that's already being used for types. And `conjure` probably only works for object constructors.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Phrase origin: Why do we "call" functions?
by srgpqt on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @07:01PM
(#44515589)
Erlang/Elixir use "cast" method name when sending messages to their GenServer actor processes.
Re:Phrase origin: Why do we "call" functions?
by borromakot on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @07:25PM
(#44515733)
There are two terms.
* call - to send and await a reply * cast - to send and not await a reply
Re:Phrase origin: Why do we "call" functions?
by tristramb on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @05:33PM
(#44514940)
And 'summon' is just used for demons.
Re:Phrase origin: Why do we "call" functions?
by throwaway889900 on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @05:59PM
(#44515132)
A keyword exclusively used for network calls, in particular microservices ahaahaha
Re:Phrase origin: Why do we "call" functions?
by Terr_ on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @10:13PM
(#44516561)
AFAIK there isn't a wizardly joke programming language yet--perhaps that was considered redundant--but you can use "giving" and "taking" if you're a rock-star programmer. :P
Re:Phrase origin: Why do we "call" functions?
by reverendsteveii on Thursday July 10, 2025 @10:04AM
(#44521246)
let's use conjure for method interactions and reify as a special case when that method is a constructor. the more this sounds like medieval alchemy the more I can get behind it, and I've already got misbehaving daemons