3 ms·

There are other costs, like fragmentation: not everybody agrees that "monster" is a good replacement, and there are many places where it definitely isn't a good

There are other costs, like fragmentation: not everybody agrees that "monster" is a good replacement, and there are many places where it definitely isn't a good replacement. Then there's changes to documentation, wikis, and other written documents. Not to mention time spent discussing alternatives and spreading the word. On a personal level, it may be a few tiny tweaks but also very tiny personal impact. On a global scale, it could be a larger impact but also takes a lot more effort (combined effort of millions of tiny tweaks). Whether that effort is worth the payoff is debatable, especially considering what other initiatives that effort could be directed to.

macguillicuddy 4y ago
This is a good point :-) I suppose if we gradually evolve language over time then we amortise and reduce any cost. I don't think we necessarily need to go around rewriting any books for most issues - but if this blog author (and others) tweak their language, maybe the next book to be written on the issue will make a more meaningful step forward, without any refactor cost. In any case there seems to be be no argument here that a given author shouldn't choose to tweak their words as they see fit where meaning is still clear - something that the parent commenter was implying as an issue.