That reminds me of what happened to "Object Oriented". First, Alan Kay coined the term, having something like Smaltalk in head (emphasis on messages, and a strong dislike of unchecked side effects like setters and the assignment statement). Then the term was subverted, and we got C++ and Java (emphasis on classes, and a near-total disregard for the problems of pervasive side effects[1]).
My point is, we should be careful before we corrupt a term. Doing so corrupts our perception of the concept itself. And if it turns out the corrupt concept is less help than the pure one, too late : it's already popular.
Comments
That reminds me of what happened to "Object Oriented". First, Alan Kay coined the term, having something like Smaltalk in head (emphasis on messages, and a strong dislike of unchecked side effects like setters and the assignment statement). Then the term was subverted, and we got C++ and Java (emphasis on classes, and a near-total disregard for the problems of pervasive side effects[1]).
My point is, we should be careful before we corrupt a term. Doing so corrupts our perception of the concept itself. And if it turns out the corrupt concept is less help than the pure one, too late : it's already popular.
[1]: That assignment thing really sucks: http://www.loup-vaillant.fr/articles/assignment