intimidating terminology (was: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Time for a new logo?)

[Jonathan Cast]

On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 09:13 +0000, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> When accurate names for Haskell concepts already exist we should use
> them (as we have tried in the past).  There has been too much
> invention of misleading terminology in computing already.

There are two possible cases (this applies to any branch of mathematics,
or mathematical discipline):

a) Use existing words, and give them new meanings.  Then you're using a
word that already means something else.

Best example: series vs. sequence in calculus.

b) Invent a new word (probably based on Latin or Greek roots).  Then
you're using incomprehensible and frightening technical jargon.

Best example: catamorphism (apparently).

So you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

My solution: stop caring what people think.

jcc