One-off vs. One-of (was Re: CPU design at the gate level)

Well, that's interesting for sure. Having been in engineering since 1963, I have to say I've heard the term "one-of" countless times, since that's been the main thrust of my work since that time, and it is short for one-of-a-kind, while I started running into the term "one-off" only in the past decade, and, in fact, have never actually heard it used, only having seen it written. For that reason, I always thought of it as one of the countless spelling errors one runs into in the engineering community more and more as engineers are taught to be literate less and less. It surprises me, of course, that a term could be so widely understood, yet used so seldom by those with whom I've worked, over the past three decades and more, that I've never heard it used, even once, that I can recall. I've heard that explanation a number of times, but still am uncomfortable with it, as it seems to me to be a misuse/abuse of the language. Perhaps I'm being too pedantic. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ethan Dicks" <erd_6502(a)yahoo.com> To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 4:22 PM Subject: One-off vs. One-of (was Re: CPU design at the gate level) > > --- Richard Erlacher <edick(a)idcomm.com> wrote: > > Unfortunately for the builders of "one-of's," like me (spelled one-off's > > in some places, for reasons I don't understand)... > > It's not just spelled "one-off", it's pronounced "one-off" - as in > "Wan Awf", not "Wan Ov". It's an engineer's term for a prototype. > > I think you are interpreting it as short for "one of a kind" which I > don't think it is exactly an abbreviation for. It might be short for > "run one off the assembly line and stop", though. > > Not sure of the history, but it really is "one-off". I first heard the > term used 17 years ago, not that _it_ was new to the industry, but _I_ > was new, then. > > -ethan >