Re: [PATCH] doc: replace jargon word "impact" with "effect"/"affect"

["Michal Suchánek" <msuchanek@suse.de>]

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:47:15AM -0500, Varun Varada wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 01:47, Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:13:08AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:43:38PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > > > > It is a paradox called "the bikeshedding effect". When you contribute a
> > > > > complex and convoluted change it's easier to get it in because few people
> > > > > can object (as few people can understand it). But when you contribute a
> > > > > change as simple as changing the color of something, then *everyone* can
> > > > > opine (literally).
> > > >
> > > > You forget that what you are doing right now is bikeshedding after the
> > > > fact.
> > >
> > > Except that's not what I'm doing.
> > >
> > > > You can use 'affect' or 'impact' and it generally conveys the same
> > > > meaning.
> > >
> > > That's clearly *your* opinion, but that's not my opinon.
> > >
> > > I'm not arguing between blue and red; I'm arguing between water-based and
> > > lead-based paint.
> >
> > No, you are not. There is no clear problem with 'impact', either.
> >
> > So if somebody comes along later and says that they find 'affect'
> > confusing and impact should be used does that need to be accepted as
> > well, back and forth ad nauseam?
> 
> This is whataboutism and hypothetical. But even if one were to
> disregard those facts, I'm willing to bet actual money that no one (at
> least anyone with access to a dictionary or even a basic grasp of the
> English language) would do this because "affect" has a universal
> definition and is not in the realm of jargon in any dictionary or
> style guide. The same cannot be said about "impact".
> 
> >
> > > The difference may not matter to you, but it matters to me.
> > >
> > > If it's bikeshedding to you, and it "gnerally conveys the same meaning",
> > > why are you arguing against?
> >
> > So if 'for' loops and 'while' loops generally convey the same meaning
> > should we accept patches that replace some 'for' loops with 'while'
> > lopps or vice versa?
> >
> > Surely not. There are different situations in which loops can be used,
> > and different people find 'for' and 'while' loops clearer and and easier
> > to understand in different situations. If you rewrite the piece of code
> > that includes a loop it might be worthwhile to change the loop type for
> > clarity, and at the time when the code is added or modified it is time
> > to discuss which one is better, not after.
> >
> > On the other hand if you state the goal to not have redundant semicolons
> > then even if code with and without redundant semicolons is the same and
> > in most cases it does not make any difference for human understanding
> > either patches that just remove redundant semicolons work towards a
> > specific goal. That makes them acceptable even if they are very minor
> > because there is clear metric they improve which makes the inverse patch
> > not acceptable.
> >
> > If you want to make the case for 'impact' in general being obscure or
> > hard to understand you will have hard time doing so. There are
> > dictionaries that recognize 'impact' as synonymous to 'affect' without
> > any difference in degree. In the COCA corpus there is around 200k
> > instances of 'effect', around 100k instances of 'affect', and around
> > 100k instances of 'impact' which makes effect/affect about 3 times more
> > frequent than 'impact'. That's not even an order of magnitude - clearly
> > not enough to claim it obscure. All of the words are within first 1k so
> > arguably if you have intermediate knowledge of (US) English you should
> > be familiar with all three.
> >
> > However, there is a different corpus that is much more relevant for the
> > git project:
> >
> > ✔ ~/git [master|…9]
> > 06:35 $ git grep affect | wc -l
> > 368
> > ✔ ~/git [master|…9]
> > 06:41 $ git grep effect | wc -l
> > 350
> > ✔ ~/git [master|…9]
> > 06:42 $ git grep impact | wc -l
> > 54
> >
> > There are only 54 instances of the word 'impact' in the git repository
> > which make up only 7.5%. It is feasible to eliminate those 54 instances
> > completely. In doing so you will make the git project use the same
> > wording consistently which makes it arguably more approachable to
> > non-native speakers with limited vocabulary. That states a clear metric
> > that is improved by such patch which also makes the reverse patch not
> > acceptable and prevents potential for infinite back-and-forth changing
> > from one synonym to the other.
> >
> > Bonus points if you add a test that prevents adding new instances of
> > 'impact' in the future.
> 
> So you're saying you're OK with getting rid of all instances of
> "impact"? I'm for this, but insofar as I searched the code base, I
> only found the ones I'm changing in my patch (save for a couple that,
> as a previous reviewer mentioned, are included from other repos, so I
> left those).

Yes, I am not opposed to the change in principle. You just failed to
provide any valid reason.

Part of writing a patch is coming up with sound reasoning why the change
is desirable and stating that clearly in the commit message.

I don't know if this reasoning is acceptable to git maintainers but at
least there is some real data it is based on.

Thanks

Michal