This is a bit like the Java philosophy. It works, it's arguably perfect for writing huge, plot-driven, King-like novels, but using this rule diminishes the auth

This is a bit like the Java philosophy. It works, it's arguably perfect for writing huge, plot-driven, King-like novels, but using this rule diminishes the author's ability to use interesting constructs in the same way Java prevents the programmer from using interesting constructs. You could say "if you have to look the keyword up in a textbook, it's wrong". This applies not only to coYoneda but also to goroutine. It's more-or-less obvious that it was a great rule for Stephen King, but it's not clear if it would have helped David Foster Wallace write this: 'How did you know I was interested in Byzantine erotica?' 'You seem persistently to confuse me with someone who merely hangs out a shingle with the word Conversationalist on it, and this operation with a fly-by-night one strung together with chewing gum and twine. You think I have no support staff? Researchers at my beck? You think we don't delve full-bore into the psyches of those for whom we've made appointments to converse? You don't think this fully accredited limited partnership would have an interest in obtaining data on what informs and stimulates our conversees? 'I know only one person who'd ever use full-bore in casual conversation.' 'There is nothing casual about a conversation with a professional conversationalist. We delve. We obtain, and then some. Young sir.'