| > OOP is not a word, though. It's a jargon term. Jargon terms are a subset of words. > You can't redefine those. You can. Anyone that's been around computing knows that “functional programming” (and even “imperative programming”, which at one point contrasted with structured programming) have drifted > Jargon terms don't drift. Jargon terms absolutely drift (and get overloaded) for the same reason as other terms do,the difference is the community of use in which those factors which drive drift/overloading operate. > To be clear, I'm mostly talking about the same thing that is true of the term "Begging the question." Laymen can use it to mean whatever they want—and I don't begrudge them that, it's a phrase in a language and people will do what they like with it. But that lay-usage will never change what the phrase means in the context of formal deductive reasoning. Mostly aside, but the popular alternative usage of that phrase is transitive verb phrase, and the older usage is an intransitive verb phrase (which, while this is clearly reversing the etymology, can be viewed as a special case of the transitive form with a particular direct object assumed) so the two neither conflict nor are incompatible. So, it's kind of a bad example of anything other than reflexive pedantry; accepting the alternative usage in formal circles wouldn't be drift or overloading because it is structurally distinct. |