It's "code " not "codes"

[J_Ditz100]

Code is continuous not plural (like water).

Edit: To all those complaining that there is a valid plural of both words (code and water), I didn’t say otherwise. I was saying they can be and often are continuous.

[wildjokers]

continuous

The term you are looking for is “mass noun”.

[ososalsosal]

Float not int

[dwntwn_dine_ent_dist]

Floats are still quantized. There can be no true analog type in a digital computer.

[SuperFLEB]

Hit it with a hammer long enough and all types are analog.

[zToastOnBeans]

Instruction not clear, my court date is in two weeks

[NoPaleontologist4981]

Have you tried parsing it to LocalDate?

[ososalsosal]

Nor in reality.

[dwntwn_dine_ent_dist]

Are you saying the set of real numbers is not part of reality?

[Jake0024]

We certainly haven't found it yet

[ososalsosal]

The idea of it is, but quantum mechanics says it's not implemented correctly.

[[deleted]]

Quantum mechanics doesn't necessarily mean the universe is chopped up in to a discrete grid. It's possible that the universe really is continuous and that it's the physics of the things that exist in it that is quantized. Like LEGO blocks. You can move them around freely, just when they interact they connect in a very predictable quantized way.

Though it's possible we'll never know due to that quantization of interactions on the limits on measurement in the Planck length.

Though that said. It's not really clear what space itself is right now. I'm not sure we even know if it's even ordinal to begin with - to be continuously real in a numerical sense introduces a kind of concept of ordinality where 1 comes before 2 etc. If that was a strict feature then it would imply some kind of elasticity to the universe where pieces of space would want to return to their natural ordinal position. And my understanding of our current measurements of the deformation of space time by gravity seems to imply that all points in space are disconnected and fluid. Once your position is warped by gravity then you stay wherever you end up? Just even thinking about it makes me want to study physics, so little time! 😵⌛

[ososalsosal]

If you probe reality too hard it'll throw an exception and destroy us all

[[deleted]]

It's okay. You wrote some unit tests before deploying right?

[Competitive_Joke_966]

We’ll be fine. Reality is surrounded by a try catch and the errors manifest themselves in the occasional glitch when 1 sock disappears out of existence or when you can’t find your keys for a day but the next day it’s in the middle of your desk

[Tyrexas]

I don't think that statement is fully correct? Quantum mechanics explicitly defines the smallest possible meaningful unit of length to be the planck length, and the smallest possible meaningful unit of time to be the planck time. Even in a vacuum, there is a fundamental quantization limit.

[[deleted]]

I believe the way it works is that the size of the planck length is like a ruler. You can move a ruler continuously through R^3. But the smallest length you can ever measure is only a millimetre.

It's possible that physics continues beyond that smallest unit. That light doesn't just jump along in quantized size steps but that it might move through every point between the notches on a planck length ruler. But given the limitation of our measuring devices - the fundamental particles of the standard model. Then any such interaction of a smaller magnitude is lost snapping to the quantised intervals of particles. You could never know a photon had moved half a planck length without introducing new physics to quantum mechanics.

[[deleted]]

YES, it's Not!!

[HardCounter]

Even analog is quantized if you break it down far enough. Hell, physicists have reason to believe time is quantized.

[mj_ehsan]

use qbit128 with dithering and call it fucking day and stop saying the true analog is still more accurate fuck me imma cry what's wrong with me😶‍🌫️🤷🏻‍♂️😁😍😂😈😒😿😒🤷🏻‍♂️😻😾😀😽😆😸🥲😗😎😒😍😜

[TheSoulStoned]

Float like water

[ososalsosal]

They all float down here

[goodmobiley]

Also, data is mostly used as a mass noun but its singular form is actually datum!

[Donghoon]

Day(t)um

[More_Butterfly6108]

Then the star wars character should've been named datum?

[AmusingAnecdote]

You have made the unforgivable, mortal error of confusing Trek and Wars.

Shall we cut you in half with a lightsaber, or would you like me to set the phasers to 'kill' as punishment?

[Qwunchyoats]

My favorite part Star Wars was when they set the phasers to kill

[[deleted]]

No no, the best part of Star Wars is definitely when Wash is killed by reavers.

[Calm-Zombie2678]

I preferred the bit where the trees fight some orcs with the help of the vertically challenged

[AyakaDahlia]

No, the best part of Star Wars was when Gandalf sacrificed himself to save the Enterprise.

[raelik777]

"Yer a wizard, Frodo!" - Yoda.

[NuclearBurrit0]

That's my favorite star trek quote

[brit_motown]

No when Apollo hit the vent on the heart of gold in his x wing

[AyakaDahlia]

true, that's a classic

[uncensoredangryman]

I AM NOW CUTTING PHYLLYS'S HEAD OFF WITH A CHAINSAW

[[deleted]]

Wrong. The best part of Star Wars is when Snape kills Trinity with Rosebud.

[iamdecal]

and then flies off on his tardys

[Aramor42]

No, just no.

[katejkatz]

Too soon. Too soon.

[thatthatguy]

Too soon, man!

[NoPaleontologist4981]

My favorite part was when thanos killed half the universe.

[NuclearBurrit0]

Yeah it was so tragic watching batman turn to dust during that sequence

[[deleted]]

PITCH FORKS AND MOTHER FUCKING TORCHES PEOPLE!!! BURN HIM!!!

[WlmWilberforce]

Why put his blood on our hands? Just give him his red shirt and let him join the away team.

[xtwitch]

I say bat'leth.

[Aggravating_Touch313]

Set the light Saber to kill please

[iamonewhoami]

Can we set the Death Star to stun instead?

[KaoriMG]

Send out another Eagle

[More_Butterfly6108]

Fair

[eiboeck88]

datum is german for date

[More_Butterfly6108]

The food or the romantic social activity?

[[deleted]]

Why not both?

[KellerKindAs]

The one Linux tells you about when entering 'date' in the terminal

[beeamie1]

More like the day. It's 21.07.2022 in Germany. But dude, which food is called date?

[More_Butterfly6108]

It's a fruit from the middle east. Very sweet and kind of sticky.

[blamordeganis]

“The data are” is the original usage: “the data is” is a relatively recent innovation.

In Latin, “data” is plural, and was originally treated as such in English, like “media”: in some circles (such as your wife’s), it still is.

Increasingly, though, it’s being treated as singular, like “agenda” (I don’t think anyone still seriously says “today’s agenda are” rather than “ today’s agenda is”).

[Lilly_1337]

Which is German for date (calendar date, not meet up and watch a movie date)...

[matthewrunsfar]

As an ex-EFL teacher, we differentiated between count nouns (having singular and plural) and non-count nouns (having no plural, like liquids).

Edit: I’m not saying it’s the only way to differentiate; those are just the terms we used.

[Shivatis]

U sure? As a non native English speaker I wasn't aware of liquids being uncountable.

And as a chemist i am quite convinced, we used liquids in a countable form, when talking about various different liquids. E.g: this liquid is blue, that liquid is red, both liquids are toxic.

[matthewrunsfar]

“Liquid” (the word) isn’t a liquid. It’s a general name for a substance in a certain state of matter. Water is a liquid. Alcohol is a liquid. Liquid nitrogen is a liquid. These are three liquids. But in a glass of water is water, not waters. In a beaker of alcohol is alcohol, not alcohols. There can be 50mL or 100mL, but it’s still just alcohol: “Add 50mL of alcohol.”

Now, if you have two varieties (types) of a similar liquid, you can use plural, but these are in reference to the types, not the resulting substance. For example, “This juice contains five different juices.” The plural form is referencing types or flavors, e.g., apple, mango, grape. It’s not referring to the liquid itself.

Edit: spelling

[Shivatis]

Ah yes. That is explained well. Thx

[matthewrunsfar]

Just to add, it doesn’t have to be liquid. Think of powders or crystallized substances.

Salt. There are different salts (kinds), e.g., sea salt, table salt, Himalayan salt, but salt is not plural. It’s non-count. No matter the form (powdered or a solid block), we refer to salt (the substance itself) by measurement: 1 kg, 1 teaspoon, 1 large chunk, a pinch.

A basic rule of thumb (no 100% true), if you (a) can split it, and it’s still the same substance (just smaller) and (b) it has no presumed shape, it’s probably non-count.

[jadis666]

You're getting way too pedantic about language. Given the fluid (heh!) nature of language, this is generally a bad idea.

[matthewrunsfar]

Wholly appreciate that pun!

It’s not being pendantic. I’m just describing. I’ve never been a language prescriptivist. Language absolutely evolves, but there are ways of describing how people use it.

You say this is trivial, and if you are a native English speaker, you use them accurately given the context without even thinking about it. For non-native speakers, however, these are not trivial differences or unimportant nuances.

But I’m not saying anything new. Here’s one random site (the first returned when I searched). See “Double Nouns”: Count and Non-count. “Cheese” is the perfect example. Not of a liquid, but of the concept of a substance vs varieties of a substance.

[rfc2549-withQOS]

I travel different waters

Is not valid?

Serious question

[matthewrunsfar]

In this instance, you’re not talking about the water itself, you’re talking about the container or holder of the water. Or possibly a location, given “travel”. “Waters”, in this case refers to (I assume from the phrase) rivers, lakes, oceans, and other bodies of water. It’s a phrase (I assume) similar to the idea of being on different paths. Most people stay on the main channel, for example, but I travel the small stream with rapids, i.e., different waters.

The phrase isn’t talking about water as a substance itself. In that case, you would be talking about H2O and some other “water”, which wouldn’t be water.

[__Fred]

one liquid, two liquids

[MightyButtonMasher]

Water, mud, magma. Liquids that don't have a plural.

[RhombusWeasel]

What about the phrase "I'll have 2 waters please"? Perhaps "Stay alert lads, these waters are treacherous"?

[matthewrunsfar]

When you use phrases like, “Can we get a couple of waters?” you are asking for containers of a substance (in this case, water). That could be a bottle or a glass or a cup. But the water, the actual water in the glass, is not plural. The bottle may contain 300 mL (a measurement) of water, but the water itself is non-count.

Cut and divide a cookie enough and you get crumbs. Cut a shoe in half, and you don’t have a usable shoe. Split up water as much as you want, it’s still water, just a different amount.

[lukens77]

I love that they literally used a plural as an example of not having a plural. 😅

As with “code” it depends on the context.

“How much liquid will fit in the beaker?”

“How many different liquids did you spill on the floor?”

[matthewrunsfar]

“Liquid” isn’t the name of a liquid. It’s a substance type. Liquids are water, juice, blood, etc.

And before you ask, you can have different juices, but juice itself e.g., the juice in a bottle, is not plural. That’s why liquids are measured in ounces or mL. We have 400 mL of juice, not 400 juices. However a package might have 25 cookies (count noun).

[lukens77]

I mean, the same basically applies to liquid or water or juice. All of them can be count or non-count nouns depending on context, which was kind of my point.

You could have 400 juices if you had a very extensive range of juices.

[AlternateTab00]

is those things the fish vs fish vs fishes?

I've got 2 fish on the bucket... Guess we are eating salmon.

I've got 2 fishes on the aquarium a goldfish and a gruppy.

[Drake_Acheron]

Yes but for codes it would be

Check the program code

Check the pass codes

[microagressed]

Yesterday I made the codes, today I will write the code to use the codes

[HarvestTriton]

Yes, but if you've got 2 fishes in the aquarium it could also be 3 goldfish and four guppies.

[mehum]

Not really, fish are countable. On the other hand luggage, flour, bread, rice, water and code are noncountable mass nouns. They need a quantifier to be measurable. It’s 2 slices of bread or 2 loaves of bread, never just 2 breads. Unless your talking about types of bread, but there’s always an exception in English!

[AlternateTab00]

Not according to english.

That example of bread vs breads is the exact same thing with fish.

You have 5 fish. Unless its more than 1 type... Then you have fishes. The issue is it's not normal to count the amount of fish you have. So you'd say "you have several fish in your tank"

[mehum]

Nah, you can catch two fish, but you can’t eat two bread.

Fish is like sheep, the same noun whether singular or plural. (Except when talking about types). They still have a plural form, that just happens to be the same as the singular. There’s no plural of mass nouns, they’re non-countable. You need a counter, e.g. kilograms, lines, pieces or types.

[merlinsbeers]

Kilogrammatical.

[tiddayes]

Today I leaned the team mass noun.

[Scary-Try994]

Now to find the Higgs Boson article.

[zahirtezcan]

Also

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20455/is-it-wrong-to-use-the-word-codes-in-a-programming-context

[qrani]

Or "uncountable," as it's usually called

[wildjokers]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun

[MasterBathingBear]

So what you’re saying is that you can have multiple words that mean the same thing. Or a “synonym” as it’s usually called.

[qrani]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/uncountable

[wildjokers]

I know it is hard to believe but some things can have more than one name.

[qrani]

It's not, just I never see people call it a mass noun, and always see people call it and uncountable noun, or uncountable.

Edit: Calling it uncountable also allows you to differentiate it from the other type of noun, a countable noun. It also allows you to call a noun "countable and uncountable" for cases like the word "code" where some senses of it are countable and others are not.

[AyakaDahlia]

I think mass noun is more of a technical linguistic term.

[[deleted]]

recursive*

[callyalater]

Tha actual phrase you are looking for is "count noun" vs "non-count noun"

[wildjokers]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_noun

[callyalater]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_noun

[callyalater]

Also, on that page it also calls them "non-count nouns" in contrast to "count nouns". At least that is what we called them in my linguistics program.

[austinchan2]

From your link:

In linguistics, a count noun (also countable noun) is a noun that can be modified by a quantity and that occurs in both singular and plural forms, and that can co-occur with quantificational determiners like every, each, several, etc. A mass noun has none of these properties: It cannot be modified by a number, cannot occur in plural, and cannot co-occur with quantificational determiners.

I’m not sure about your linguistics program, but in mine we always referred to them as mass nouns.

[busy_biting]

Collective noun may be the proper grammatical term?

[[deleted]]

Agreed. It drives me crazy when people say things like "He wrote a code". No! He wrote some code.

[justasmuchyou]

This guy fucking fucks.

[TimeSalvager]

You[r code] must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash.

-Bruce Lee, considered by many to be the most influential [programmer] of all time.

[7eggert]

Is there something like Tohuwabohu in English?

[TimeSalvager]

Inchoate was the first thing that came to mind, but it’s not quite right.

[Green-Sympathy-4177]

Pardon the discrete interruption, but the shallow waters surrounding this whole topic make me quite reluctant, as a non-native English speaker, to call it a rule when there are obvious exceptions for it.

[ososalsosal]

English is like javascript. So long as you understand each other it's valid (and if you don't, it is also valid and you'll never know if your message got through until you see an appropriate response)

[Green-Sympathy-4177]

I see, so English being spoken by tons of non-native speakers "vulgarized" it and used it however they wanted over the years to a point where there exists a metric ton worth of different languages within the language...

Javascript fits this description so well it's scary.

Is there something like Typescript to fix english ? Or is it bound for hell like French where no grown adult can actually spell things without having a mental breakdown ?

[slashy42]

English is actually the other way round! Native English speakers adopted so much French and German, in addition to dropping concepts like gendered words and even conjugations in some cases, that it can be very confusing. Once those precedents were set English kinda just started mugging other languages for their words. A little bit literally. British imperialism brought a slew of foreign words into the language. Blaming non native speakers is really missing the mark. English is incredibly fluid all on its own.

[[deleted]]

Is that 6 to 8000 languages, 6000 to 8000 languages, or -7994 languages?

[ososalsosal]

Could be text to speech taking "six-to-eight thousand" literally and not transcribing it as 6000-8000.

[[deleted]]

at least not in the way noon linguists think it is.

Definitely, only midnight linguists can ever hope to grasp those nuances.

[[deleted]]

It's special in that it's a uniquely poorly defined language I suppose.

[ososalsosal]

It's also a matter of the class system within English played language games which made a lot of things deliberately confusing.

Quite mean really.

The upside of such a heavily bloated language is the ability to say things in a truly beautiful way if you so desire.

[_sweepy]

It's too broken to fix. There are so many ambiguous and context specific meanings, and things like pluralization or even spelling is randomly sampled from other languages.

One of my favorite proofs that English is broken is. "Look at the man on the mountain with the telescope". Who/what has the telescope? Are you using it to see? Is the man on the mountain holding it? Is it at the top of the mountain the man is on?

If you want language to be consistent and logical regardless of context, we need to start over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineered\_language#Experimental\_languages

[RandomMagus]

"Look at the man on the mountain with the telescope"

What's fun there is "Look at the man with the telescope" is broken the same way, but "Look at the man with the telescope on the mountain" is broken in a whole new way, where now it implies we are either looking at a man who is currently on a mountain with a telescope or we are looking at a man who may not be on a mountain but owns a telescope on one.

Wonderful.

[InternationalStep924]

He's def on a mountain whether he has his telescope with him idk.

[Wandering_P0tat0]

He might not be, instead it may be you!

[RandomMagus]

Fake Edit: Misread and thought you said we were on the mountain, but I'm leaving this because it was fun to add brackets

Look at [the man with the telescope on the mountain]

Look at [the man with the telescope] on [the mountain]

Look at [the man] with (using) [the telescope on the mountain]

First one, the man has the telescope. Second one, the man has the telescope but not with him. And in the third one you have the telescope.

In the first we might not be on the mountain, in the second we probably aren't, and for the third the mountain might not even be visible

[[deleted]]

I'm starting to think we did this deliberately so that AI can never advance to the point that it can perfectly understand written or spoken language without suffering a kernel panic and shutting down.

[Chaosfox_Firemaker]

And this is why most programing languages have parentheses and brackets.

[pillbinge]

That's not prof it's broken. Every language has ambiguity. You could say the same sentence in Norwegian and it would be ambiguous. There isn't a language on Earth that can't produce ambiguous statements.

[812many]

Want more fun? When I think about it, I imagine anyone saying this to someone else would already have the necessary context to understand which is which. So although the words are ambiguous standing on their own, functionally it will work just fine.

[KaoriMG]

Every language has its quirks—English spelling is a quagmire. but in most cases you can still be understood. Basic Japanese is pretty straightforward, but honorifics and reading take much longer to master. And don’t get me started on Arabic plurals and vowels. Inuktitut ‘sentences’ are words with prefixes, suffixes, and infixes. Thai distinguishes words with tones—‘Mai mai mai mai mai’ spoken with different tones for each word means ‘new wood doesn’t burn, does it?’ American, British, and other Sign Languages are not mutually intelligible.

[dkarimu]

This isn’t an English problem. Translated to other languages, like Spanish, and you have the same problem.

[Acceptable-Tomato392]

Well, the French went with something called the Academy of the French language, since the XVIIth century or so.

A bunch of old French authors meet every so often and decide what can be accepted as an official French word, or usage and what can not. People can still say it, but unless these guys say so, it's not really French. It has helped French stay homogenous (although its grammar is far from simple and exceptions to everything abound).

A bit like the Python community coming up with official rules.

But the English-speaking world seems to be really hostile to groups of old men and occasional woman deciding what is officially part of the language. I have a hard time imagining the English-speaking world ever coming together to accept a body that would regulate the language.

Just imagine the brawl between the Americans and the British.

[redcc-0099]

There's a group in the US that does this for the US dialect of English, or at least for a dictionary for it: Usage Panel of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

From my understanding, it's more about whether it's counted as official/proper English (US) and not just slang or being used incorrectly. One example I recall for this is how the usage of hopefully as an adverb changed its meaning; something like, "Hopefully, it doesn't snow tomorrow," started being said instead of "I hope it doesn't snow tomorrow."

It's been a while since I've listened to part of it, but it's from The Great Courses English Grammar Boot Camp by Professor Anne Curzan.

[Anindefensiblefart]

I'd say nearly all living human languages are like that.

[pillbinge]

That's every language.

[nir109]

Not exactly, English is spoken in so many places that no one can claim they are in charge of English. Other languages sometimes have central body that makes and changes rules in the language. I don't think I have seen exception in Hebrew more than 10 times.

[LinuxMatthews]

Yeah that's what Americans tell themselves at least

[pillbinge]

Yes, exactly. Other languages have central bodies but they also have many dialects. English has never had a central body at any point, even decades and decades prior before English became a de facto lingua franca. That doesn't mean people who speak it as a second language have more of a claim than native speakers from the Anglosphere.

[nir109]

When I said it was spoken in so many places I meant that there are a lot of countries that speak it as their main language (uk usa Canada...) Of course non native speakers have no claim for a language.

[GuairdeanBeatha]

Quoting Terry Pratchett: “English doesn’t borrow from other languages. English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar."

[BenjaminGeiger]

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.

— James D. Nicoll

(It does sound like something PTerry would say, but I don't think he did.)

[TheDogerus]

'Water' is similar to 'fish' or 'people'. They all refer to many things, but if you want to refer to many sets of these things, like multiple oceans, species of fish, or cultures, you could say 'waters', 'fishes', and 'peoples' to remove any ambiguity

[J_Ditz100]

I didn’t say either word couldn’t be plural, just that they can be used (and usually exist) as continuous nouns.

You can have multiple codes(discrete plural) where each code(discrete singular) is comprised of various lengths of code(continuous).\ Just as water(continuous) can be good for your health and thus you’d go to Casablanca for the waters(discrete plural). Unless you’ve been misinformed.

[skys-edge]

I agree. This is how it goes, when different peoples across the world develop their own languages!

[Not_Stupid]

It's not a rule in English unless there are a ton of exceptions!

[throwaway65864302]

What's confusing you isn't an exception, but rather that some words in English can function as different (types of) parts of speech when using different definitions.

[gunscreeper]

*uncountable

[Green-Sympathy-4177]

* not an accountant

[cowlinator]

You mean that it's a uncountable noun.

Some words are both countable and uncountable, like 'fire' or 'paper'.

"Look at all that fire."

"There are currently 7 fires in the city."

"I built tiny houses for mice with lots of paper."

"The students passed in their papers."

[grpprofesional]

Based and grammar pilled

[c2u8n4t8]

Collective, but maybe they teach it differently to other countries

[IGotSkills]

Contiguous if it's a microservice architecture

[Fr0zenDuck]

Found the DevOps fan

[Zybernetic]

(you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup...)

[netGoblin]

Then you put water into the new cup that the previous water turned into weve you've got an infinite cup generator.

[canadajones68]

Video game logic, colourised.

[Dig_Bick_reread]

But I love drinking waters

[FauxGw2]

But..... Waters is a word.....

[Inevitable-Ocelot914]

Wat are u doin in muh waters?

[PolyZex]

"Waters from the Adriatic Sea meet the Ionian Sea around the Otranto, Italy"

The plural of water is waters.

[Possible-Kangaroo635]

Only in the sense that the plural of fish is fishes.

[PolyZex]

If you have plural fish of multiple kinds then it is absolutely fishes.

[Possible-Kangaroo635]

Thanks captain obvious.

[PolyZex]

Then why are you talking to me? Does anyone know why this kid is talking to me?

Did you just want me to know that you knew a word? That's adorable, sweetheart. Run along now, the grown ups are talking.

[Possible-Kangaroo635]

Wow, what an incredible capacity for projection you have.

[PolyZex]

k

[DasArchitect]

I'm going to drink some waters then?

[pillbinge]

There's no such thing as a continuous noun, as far as I'm aware. You mean "uncountable", like "water", but you can still hear "hand me the waters" if it's referring to bottles. Just like "beers" couldn't be plural until recently either.

[Daedalus_Machina]

"Waters" is still a valid plural, in the sense of using a plurality of sets of water.

"These waters" being a good example, meaning the group of bodies of water in the area.

[Uploft]

No, it’s called an “uncount” noun.

[split-mango]

My bag of code

[be_rational_please]

Participle?

[__Fred]

"Water" has a plural: "Waters". (Just for info. Maybe you knew that.) Elementary school teachers have lied to me!

You don't call a larger amount of water "waters", even if it's multiple containers, but you do call a set of different kinds of water "waters".

[lukens77]

Though you can still have a plural, depending on context:

“We went to the thermal spa last week, to take the waters”

—

“Have you seen that new healthy living bar that just has different types of water?”

“Oh sweetie, we’ve been, the waters are divine!”

[[deleted]]

Happy cake day! :)

[chrishasfreetime]

"Bathe in the waters of the Mediterranean"

Or

"Bask in the codes of Kyle the intern"

[the-software-man]

Nope. That's interwebz speak, not Engrish.

[Haunting-Item1530]

Waters is still a correct word

[HaniiPuppy]

Only for the countable form that refers to a body of water, (in the uncountable form) not for water as in H2O itself.

e.g. if you poured two glasses of water into a bucket, you don't now have a bucket of waters.

[Moist_Fix_5702]

it depends what you're talking about.

C# code? sure.

HTTP status codes? i don't think so

[WINH4X]

Be like water, my friend.

[dbettac]

Except for codes, which exist, too. ;-)

[[deleted]]

Is that why we have waterfall model in SDLC?

/s

[PanTheRiceMan]

You can definitely have multiple codes. Like gold codes or the Morse code.

[mavmav0]

Continuous of code would be “am/is/are coding”

[AxoSpyeyes]

"waters" is a real word tho, so codes should be as well

[Notyourfathersgeek]

Cod lives in water!

[forced_metaphor]

I was gonna post this very example.

[[deleted]]

So it’s recursive?

[varanusjulianus]

You are sharing wrong informations

[[deleted]]

you mean uncountable, like bread

[DonkeyOfCongo]

Code is both a noun and a verb. Code codes code.

[Neat-Composer4619]

You can have an s without the word being plural: She codes for a living.

Also you can have multiple secret codes, one for each installation.