One of the things that programmers do that I find most frustrating is proclaim that the definition of words that they use is the objectively correct definition,

One of the things that programmers do that I find most frustrating is proclaim that the definition of words that they use is the objectively correct definition, and frame their entire discussion as an argument that other people aren't using words correctly. Pick any term and the kind of argument comes to mind - "type," "object," "metaprogramming," "dependency injection," "design pattern," etc. This article has a lot of good content about testing strategies, as well as an introduction to some of the jargon used in a certain testing discourse, but the argument is framed as telling you that mocks aren't stubs, and you, the reader, have been using these words incorrectly. But the reader has only been using these words differently. This is a very common pattern of behavior among programmers and I think it is worthwhile to push back against it, separately from acknowledging the useful information in this article. (And the grandparent comment you replied to also did some of this as well, of course!)