Re: The Importance of Terminology's Quality

> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 PLEASE DO NOT =A0 | =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
=A0:.:\:\=
:/:/:.:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0FEED THE TROLLS =A0| =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 :=3D.'
- =
=A0 - '.=3D:

I don't think Xah is trolling here (contrary to his/her habit)
but posing an interesting matter of discussion.

Don't know to which point it fits, but I would like to do some rather
novel comment on operator naming:
As a non native english speaker, the first time I ever encountered the
word "if" was when learning to program. The same can be said of the
other words (for, then, else...) This caused my brain to adscribe them
meanings completely outside the context of everyday language. My point
is that perhaps this is advantageous. So, contrary to tradition (which
considers a desirable goal to write programs as close as possible to
everyday english), I found convenient that programming languages use
words different from the words of my native tongue. I suspect that is
why car and cdr have caught on vs. first end rest.