[liontwist]

The more abstract and technical the subject matter the less likely that it will mirror a familiar real world experience and have a good word.

Using a real world name can actually be distracting because it may suggest attributes and behaviors which are not true of the thing.

This is why math papers use Greek letters. There is no words for “the amount of space where if the function is close enough than the cube of that function value will be within the initial tolerance requiring” so they just use “delta” and you learn the exact meaning of delta from its definition and usage.

I think this advice about “readable code” comes from every day business problems where there is a close correspondence between code processes and business processes.

Complex programs require expertise to understand, and only hubris would make you think longer names would substitute for studying the subject. Even “string” is technical jargon.

[Empact]

> Even “string” is technical jargon.

"string of characters" as a concept substantially predates the first computers: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22string+of+characters%22&l...

[liontwist]

Yes, but if you don’t already know programming or a related field you won’t know that.

So according to modern naming convention it’s a bad name because of gate keeping, ivory tower, etc along with: thread, kernel, float, register, ascii, etc

[Empact]

We have to invent domain-specific language when there is no existing term for an important concept. Each of the terms you mention except ascii (which is an acronym) is imbued with contextual meaning: thread of execution, kernel as in essential core, float as in floating point, register is in that which records and reflects. I’m willing to bet I will find similar pre-computer uses if I go looking.

Which is to say they represent a different approach than simply making up a word devoid of meaning.