The message of the article (or the combination of the article and title) appeared to be that geeks should work to make tech-speak more "manageable" for business types.
While this might be true in specific situations X and Y, as a general rule I disagree quite strongly. We have technical words because they are an accurate way of describing stuff. I would much rather have business and marketing people speaking with their real jargon than "talking down" to me. I'm perfectly capable of consulting a dictionary or asking for assistance if a business type throws a strange term my way. This is because I respect business knowledge and don't trivialize what those people do and/or expect it to be easily understood.
Sure, marketing types shouldn't need to get a CS degree. But if we should definitely be using real words like "router" and "system memory" and not invoke a whole basket full of failed birds-and-bees analogies to explain these concepts (at least not by default. If they ask for an explanation an analogy can be invoked.)
The submitter's point (which I realize is not the original sense of the article) is that technical jargon is needlessly complex, complex to no useful end. If network topology and time complexity and so on were really one-to-one with nice neat English words, we wouldn't need 4-year (or masters, or doctorate) degrees in technical fields, and to assume that alternate English words exist is to assume the simplicity of technical work. But every technical term exists for a needful purpose--to describe something for which an existing word is inadequate. Thus in the general case, the technical term for something is the optimal word to use, in that it most-precisely describes its object.
This reveals (on the part of people with this mindset, not necessarily the submitter) some sort of superiority complex, or at least not showing proper respect for people who are probably every bit as smart as you.
While this might be true in specific situations X and Y, as a general rule I disagree quite strongly. We have technical words because they are an accurate way of describing stuff. I would much rather have business and marketing people speaking with their real jargon than "talking down" to me. I'm perfectly capable of consulting a dictionary or asking for assistance if a business type throws a strange term my way. This is because I respect business knowledge and don't trivialize what those people do and/or expect it to be easily understood.
Sure, marketing types shouldn't need to get a CS degree. But if we should definitely be using real words like "router" and "system memory" and not invoke a whole basket full of failed birds-and-bees analogies to explain these concepts (at least not by default. If they ask for an explanation an analogy can be invoked.)
The submitter's point (which I realize is not the original sense of the article) is that technical jargon is needlessly complex, complex to no useful end. If network topology and time complexity and so on were really one-to-one with nice neat English words, we wouldn't need 4-year (or masters, or doctorate) degrees in technical fields, and to assume that alternate English words exist is to assume the simplicity of technical work. But every technical term exists for a needful purpose--to describe something for which an existing word is inadequate. Thus in the general case, the technical term for something is the optimal word to use, in that it most-precisely describes its object.
This reveals (on the part of people with this mindset, not necessarily the submitter) some sort of superiority complex, or at least not showing proper respect for people who are probably every bit as smart as you.