Less Syllables More Meaning

Are there principles operating even at the word level similar to DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork and OnceAndOnlyOnce?

[This page should, gramatically, be "Fewer Syllables More Meaning", but trading correctness for meaning is part of the game :-). And of course, those other pages would be named DoTheLeastThatWorks? and JustOnce?. Quite so. NickSimons has always called the latter OncePer?. Please feel free to gloat, but at least only OncePer? grammatical error.]

From MethodOrMethodology and LowCeremonyMethods:

Methodology is a horrendously ugly word. Method is good.

As MichaelJackson points out, "methodology" strictly speaking means the study of method and should not therefore be used for an individual method ("although I'm not a pedant in the strict sense of the term", as NickSimons would say). "Points out?? Who is he to "point out"? He should check the dictionaries before he "points out".

I suggest that MichaelJackson and other - particularly English people - who wish to point out what 'methodology' means, might look up the word in Webster's International (i.e. American) Dictionary (MerriamWebsterDictionary) first. Why might we? Does Webster's have some sort of privileged position? I suggest that people - particularly American people - look up the word in the OxfordEnglishDictionary. (Ahh, but I have, and evidently you haven't)

DividedByaCommonLanguage yet again! Jackson's key point remains valid though: we don't have another decent word for the study of method and it's a pity to lose the perfectly good one we do have. But looking again at current WikiMorphemes? we've already lost it. We'll survive.

I much prefer "functions" to "functionality", "method" to "methodology", "tough choices" to "architecture". Guess it's my problem though. --RichardDrake

Please note that real architecture is tough choices! And software isn't the only discipline with this kind of problem: what about our "constructivity" vs "construction", "perspectivity" vs "perspective"? --MartinNoutch

Even worse is object-orientated. I see it every day in job ads.

What about "technique" vs "technology"?

Indeed, it is "clear" that Technology is the study of techniques. Now if we can just teach people to use it that way, then I can start being a Technologist, which would be my preferred vocation -- AlistairCockburn

I've learned that you can put anything you want on your business cards. --RonJeffries, RocketScientist

Isn't technology also defined as a set of tools and techniques? In french, using "technologie" for "technique" is tolerated, but an "abus de langage" (language abuse). --MarcoScheurer

Why not just "factor" rather than "refactor"

Because "factor" is a one way operation: To factor a number is to find its primes. "Refactor" better describes the "take apart and put together a different way" aspect of redesigning code. -- JeffGrigg

Also, refactor suggests repeated factoring, which is exactly what it's about: every time you add something, you refactor the entire deal to make it clean again.

It has an overloaded meaning. It used to mean removing duplication, but now it means general "cleanup", even if duplication removal is not the reason. It also became more subjective in the process because duplication removal was easy to verify; but now it may mean "make the code how I want it".

MartinFowler writes about misuse of the term refactoring in his blog: http://martinfowler.com/bliki/RefactoringMalapropism.html