>Rather than fearing that naming a concept will cause stagnation, I think the opposite: the failure to have a "shorthand" for a commonly used feature means it w

>Rather than fearing that naming a concept will cause stagnation, I think the opposite: the failure to have a "shorthand" for a commonly used feature means it will continually be reinvented. Once named, the concept can be pushed down to syntax while remaining a design pattern. This is exactly the problem with design patterns. Once you recognize a design pattern, you should abstract it away and just use it from a library. Sometimes that is very hard to do. (E.g., Model-View-Controller.) But just because it is hard doesn't mean it is impossible. That kind of activity is a prime measure of success in computer science. Of course, we have the internet, but we still don't write languages that expect to pull needed tools from the internet in a smart way. You have to manually look for a library and include it yourself. When you write some code, it isn't being compared against a database of online code with your IDE telling you "Hey, someone else wrote something like this and it runs way faster and uses less text, check it out maybe?"