Is it appropriate for software to refer to itself in the first person?

Question

Hi all,

Here's a style question for you. Our software has an integrated log window, where status/warning/error messages from all the various processes in the system can be viewed by the user. It's pretty standard stuff, and it looks something like this:

2009/07/08 12:15:39 [email protected] ERROR File foo.bar not found, aborting script 2009/07/08 12:15:45 [email protected] INFO Starting the job...

The question is, is it good style for the software processes to refer to themselves in the first person in these messages? For example, is the following message okay?

2009/07/08 12:16:00 [email protected] INFO I am now taking charge of the schnozz process.

The above seems fine to me; in fact it's very similar (in my opinion) to an IRC text-chat log, except that here the "chatters" are software processes instead of humans.

My co-worker, however, feels that it is inappropriate for a software process to refer to itself as "I", and would prefer something like this:

2009/07/08 12:16:00 [email protected] INFO bazdaemon is now taking charge of the schnozz process.

That seems a bit awkward and rendundant to me, but perhaps there is a good reason for it, or some sort of unstated convention that I'm unaware of.

Your thoughts?

-Jeremy

Answer 1

yes, but only if it does really evil things. It should refer to the user as Dave. always.

Answer 2

I would avoid the issue altogether, making it output something like:

Now taking charge of the schnozz process.

The advantage is that the reader can project onto the message if it's in the first or third person. You see this in many messages output by software, even in your own example.

Answer 3

Whether you realize it or not, your users develop a relationship with your software. Having your application refer to itself in the first person is not 'wrong' though it does present what some may consider a less professional image to your users. This may be exactly what you want. I would say that whatever you decide, first person or not, professional, or light tone, keep it consistent across the entire app.

Answer 4

If your software can pass the Turing Test, it is appropriate for it to refer to itself in the first person.

Answer 5

If you believe your software algorithms are more complex than the neural pathways of an average user, then yes by all means.

Answer 6

It depends on the application. If the app is Eliza or a chess program, then it's supposed to be smart and act human. If it's a bank settlement system, then you should probably refrain. I seem to remember the Washington Mutual ATMs using the first person.

Programs which use the first person, adopt a human quality to them, and also usually imply a margin of error. Most applications you write produce exact results, and should have a matter of fact feel to them. I usually leave my humor to comments, and non-essential shell scripts.

Answer 7

Why not let the program refer to itself in third person?

In his infinite wisdom He is now taking charge of the schnozz process.

And of course you should refer to the user as a possession:

It puts the file in the appropriate folder!

;)

Answer 8

Because it's not common, I would not have daemons and log messages use the first-person. It's different enough to be noticeable, and perhaps create momentary alarm: is it echoing human communications? Is this a message from a system intruder?

I would say that given the preceding context -- the logline already identifies the origin process -- the compact declaratory version with no subject is best:

taking charge of the schnozz process

Your coworker's suggestion is second best, accepting a little redundancy for clarity, and anthropomorphizing the process in an atypical way is worst.

This would of course change if the process were often anthropomorphized -- if it had a cute human name, or another narrative interface. And if you really wanted to this for style, you could make it clearer with quotes or more labeling:

[bazdaemon says] "I am taking charge of the schnozz process."