[piaste]

Hot take: some of those names are bad too (e.g. 'polymorphism' is very vague), and OOP would be easier to learn if there was a beginner's vocabulary.

Yes, "dynamic structural typing" is a coherent and logical name when you're familiar with type theory.

But a learner can understand "duck typing" much faster. The jargon can come later.

> 'Monad' may well be an awkward word but it's clearly the mental model of the monad that's the problem. I suspect (as someone who's taught how monads work many times) that part of the problem is that once we learn how monads work, we realise they're unbelievably trivially simple.

I'm on team "join is way easier to understand than bind".