Yeah, this is an interesting take. Broadly speaking I agree, but you have to be pragmatic about that. There exist some accepted conventions it's just senseless

Yeah, this is an interesting take. Broadly speaking I agree, but you have to be pragmatic about that. There exist some accepted conventions it's just senseless to break just to make a point, for example, if you are defining a ring, making + distributive over \* rather than the opposite as is usual is not inherently wrong, but I would classify that as bad notation. Similarly in OOP, you could technically name getters in any way you want, but why would you not conform to the accepted "getValue()" standard? Of course fooling yourself into thinking you have achieved things you actually haven't by clever usage of natural language is the opposite end of the spectrum, and it's exactly what I was ranting against. I guess "skepticism" is the correct word, indeed.