If it’s referring to something like a mother/daughter circuitboard, I’ll use that. If it’s a host/client connection, I’ll use that. If it’s a primary/backup redundancy situation, I’ll use that. And those are just a few examples. There is rarely a good reason to use master/slave nowadays, since most situations already have better descriptors to begin with.
You could but he has a point. The last time I used master/slave was for IDE drives which was 15+ years ago, and even then only because I happened upon a really old system using IDE drives.
The only thing I see left is "Master" by itself, like master branch. But that makes me think of like a jujitsu master which sounds really cool lol.
Yeah, that definition of "master" is different than master/slave from what I can tell. Think the master copy of an audio recording. There are plenty of perfectly legit uses of "master," but there's no reason to use master/slave in this day and age. It was stupid to start doing so to begin with.
you could, but the connotations of master/slave have been integrated heavily over the years, and changing it willy nilly doesn't really accomplish much since we're talking about moving electrons through wires, or light through glass. So i don't think anybody really cares about it at the end of the day.
Realistically though, very little designed architectures these days operate on a master slave meta. At best there's one "primary" and several "secondary" or "follower" nodes behind it. Or some kind of democratically elected process for handling that.