CS needs to move much farther toward math and not away from it. Naming things well is always a worthy goal, but just like DDD tells us, it’s a fool’s errand in

CS needs to move much farther toward math and not away from it. Naming things well is always a worthy goal, but just like DDD tells us, it’s a fool’s errand in a global namespace. The distinction between certain concepts are so subtle that it’s arrogant to think that just choosing a better word is all it takes to make the distinction more clear. Unfortunately, we rely on idioms and made-up terms for lots of complicated concepts, but I don’t believe that narcissism is to blame. I believe the magnitude of the number of concepts we need to know about overall is gargantuan, so much so that words would get overloaded if we tried to describe everything accurately. Which would be more confusing than it is now. Also, you’re assuming a minimum context of knowledge when you say something like “Shortest Path” is a better name for Djikstra’s algorithm. What if you don’t know what a graph is, or know what a graph is but don’t know what a path is? How is Shortest Path any less opaque? There’s no lowest common denominator of knowledge, so having agreed upon terms in a given domain is the only way to remain precise.