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

On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 18:01, Jeff King [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 02:36:27PM -0500, Varun Varada wrote:

quoted

quoted

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:

quoted

quoted

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

[...]

quoted

     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:

quoted

quoted

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) :

[...]

quoted

      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:

quoted

--- 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