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

[Varun Varada <varuncvarada@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 18:01, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:36:27PM -0500, Varun Varada wrote:
>
> > > while using "will not impact" in an incorrect or unclear way may be a
> > > problem the word "impact" in itself is not "jargon".
> >
> > The word means "to have a strong or marked effect on" (v.) and "a
> > strong or market influence" (n.) when used figuratively; it is not
> > synonymous with "affect" and "effect", respectively, as shown even by
> > all of the entries you've cited. Using it as such is the incorrect
> > part, so those are the instances I've changed in the diff.
>
> Er, is that true? From Michal's definitions:
>
> > > From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
> > [...]
> > >      2. To affect or influence, especially in a significant or
>
> It literally uses "affect" to define it. The "especially significant"
> does not apply to many, but I don't think that makes it necessarily
> wrong to use impact to mean "affect".

I was drawing attention to the "especially significant" bit and the
like being there in all the entries. I'm not sure about these
dictionaries, but the definition is hyperbolic / violent / shocking in
every reputable dictionary out there: the Oxford English Dictionary,
Merriam-Webster, and Collins.

>
> Likewise:
>
> > > From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :
> > [...]
> > >       v 1: press or wedge together; pack together
> > >       2: have an effect upon; "Will the new rules affect me?" [syn:
> > >          affect, impact, bear upon, bear on, touch on,
> > >          touch]
>
> That is likewise listing "impact" and "affect" as synonyms.
>
> I do agree the word is over-used in some forms of writing, but I don't
> find anything at all confusing or wrong about the uses that you changed
> in your patch. I am a native speaker of English. I'm open to the
> argument that non-native speakers may be more confused by the word. But
> this seems like mostly a style preference thing, and I'd generally
> prefer to leave the contributions and style of the original writers
> intact unless there is a good reason not to.

I am a native English speaker as well, and there were multiple places
where I had to think twice about what the sentences mean. I agree with
your sentiment about leaving stylistic preferences intact, but this is
actually a semantic one. And given that there is a perfectly good
alternative that doesn't have this confusion / jargon status, I wanted
to make the change to improve it, especially where it says that in the
output of the git command (`git checkout` when in detached HEAD mode).

>
> Such changes are doubly unwanted in cases like this:
>
> > --- a/compat/nedmalloc/malloc.c.h
> > +++ b/compat/nedmalloc/malloc.c.h
> > @@ -2952,7 +2952,7 @@ static size_t traverse_and_check(mstate m);
> >  #endif /* (FOOTERS && !INSECURE) */
> >
> >
> > -/* In gcc, use __builtin_expect to minimize impact of checks */
> > +/* In gcc, use __builtin_expect to minimize affect of checks */
> >  #if !INSECURE
> >  #if defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ >= 3
> >  #define RTCHECK(e)  __builtin_expect(e, 1)
>
> where the text is imported from another project, and we'd prefer to stay
> as close to their version as possible (e.g., to avoid unnecessary
> conflicts when pulling in new versions).

That's fair; I wasn't aware that this was being pulled directly from
another project. I can change this back.

>
> Also, this one should be "effect" anyway, as it is a noun.

This seems to have slipped through, as I used a text search tool.

>
> -Peff