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

> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:59:32PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > Varun Varada wrote:
> > > On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 04:24, Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> 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.
> > 
> > There are two ways impact can be used as a verb: transitive and
> > intransitive, but git doesn't seem to be using the intransitive form. In
> > the transitive form it usually means to strike "the car impacted the
> > tree". But it can also mean to have a desired effect "reducing CO2
> > emissions impacted climate change".
> 
> I don't know where you find the 'desired' effect meaning. Certainly none
> of the dictionaries I consulted at random provides such definition.

> > None of these are used in the documentation, we have things like:
> > 
> >   the index does not impact the outcome
> > 
> > Which is clearly wrong (unless we are talking about possitive outcome of
> > the outcome, which makes no sense).
> 
> It is not clearly wrong. To me it makes perfect sense. If you want to
> claim it's wrong please provide a source for your claim.

> > As a noun it can mean a siginificant or major effect: "the impact of
> > science".
> > 
> > However, the documentation is not using it that way:
> > 
> >   the runtime impact of tracking all omitted objects
> > 
> > The noun usage is less wrong than the verb usage, but it's still wrong.
> 
> Why is that wrong?