I think you hit the nail on the head -- "as you get deeper into the details: you need words for the fine-grained distinctions." Indeed, nomenclature gives us c

I think you hit the nail on the head -- "as you get deeper into the details: you need words for the fine-grained distinctions." Indeed, nomenclature gives us clarity of concept and that precision yields efficiency of thought and communication. Are the names arbitrary? I certainly thought so when I started. How did mock objects became expectation testing instruments and stubs didn't? How exactly is a stubbed class not a fake? Or would we use the word fake only for something like an in memory database? Aren't all test doubles fakes? Except, if a spy just wraps the object class, but allows calls through, then is it a double at all, or would it just be a probe? So are partial mocks and proxies liars? Regardless of whether the names are arbitrary, it's useful to have them. It sure beats "double type A" and "Type B double". "Perhaps you should use the Second Double Form, the Third Form isn't really necessary." Ugh. Perhaps there isn't a competing name set because it's hard enough getting everyone to agree these are distinct concepts. Maybe that would be easier with better names. After all, if there's popular rejection of the distinctions until the underlying concepts are understood, then the names aren't leading us to water on their own merit. It seems, also, the more I hear the generation before mine talk about doubles, the more I find they use them very sparingly. The Beck's and Fowler's seem laid back about the nomenclature in favor of shared processual understanding.