This forum is disabled, please visit https://forum.opencv.org
 | 1 | initial version |
Just to share my opinion, I think that this would be a very bad idea. The original terms like eroding and dilating have been around for ages, much longer than all the term software developers are giving to their functions. These are the basic concepts of computer vision and should be used in the proper way.
If we don't do this, and stimulate people to use the correct search terms, larger problems will get classified with wrong identifiers and people will have even more trouble in finding it.
Lets take an example. Take a master student (and I guess that 90% of the community exists of students/researchers/programmers) who wants to do some morphological applications on his images. He starts with his literature study (getting insight into the problem) and his first hit on wikipedia tells him about dilation and eroding options. His next step would be to select a programming environment, for example C++ and OpenCV. Then he needs to look for problems with this exact terminology and with openCV, which leads to more then enough topics.
So basically what I want to point out here, is that if people are using this stuff for serious things, they will be urged to use correct language :) And I can only push people to do that more. Personally when students say to me, hey in photoshop this is called "aaaaa" im always telling them to first look for a correct terminology :)
