On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:21:43PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: > Michal Suchánek wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 05, 2021 at 04:48:58PM -0500, Varun Varada wrote: > > > There are a bunch of places in the code/docs which use the word "impact" > > > incorrectly. This is especially true of places where it says "will not > > > impact", which suggests that it might have an effect, albeit not as > > > strong of a one. This commit replaces all of these with their > > > appropriate alternative so that the docs not only does not use jargon, > > > but are also unambiguous. > > > > Hello, > > > > while using "will not impact" in an incorrect or unclear way may be a > > problem the word "impact" in itself is not "jargon". > > From Merriam-Webster: > > jargon _noun_ > : obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and > long words > > > If you are concerned about correctness and clarity of the documentation please > > avoid spreading misinformation. > > Under certain definition of "jaron" Varun's statement would be > incorrect, but not under all definitions. If you use the definition > I stated above, "impact" can be considered jargon, because it's a bit > obscure language. Do you have any frequency data that supports your claim that the word 'impact' is obscure? In my view it's common. > Ultimately it doesn't matter if it's jargon or not, only that we have > better alternatives. 'better' under what metric? As already stated if we replaced words with synonyms solely on the basis that some people find one word more fitting or commonly used we could end up in a situation that we change between two wordings back and forth because people from different parts of the world find different words more fitting and common. The bar for change should be that the word as used is very unfitting or unintelligible. Thanks Michal
