Once upon a time, perhaps a bygone time, there lived a set of norms which formal authors and speakers fit about their expressions. That was apparently long ago.
Today I read with some delight and more incredulity from Software Language Engineering: Creating Domain Specific Languages (purchased --30% off-- at RSC 2009, Thanks digitalguru!). The work itself seems well thought and adequately researched, but the swamp of contemporary idiomatic muck one need wade through in the first chapter is unnerving. Certainly by the third chapter things have settled down to a professional tone.
Were this the only datum, I would ascribe it to idiosyncrasy, but instead too readily recall a presentation at RSC where the presenter spoke glibly of her education, her feelings, and her latest project experience ... rather than the topic of the session: features and use of a new IBM tool. And the choice of terms was what I may expect of some Hollywood actor who dropped out of high school, not the person who eventually demonstrated proficiency with both the tool and its usage.
These are not idiots, they only created the impression of cluelessness by poor discipline of indirect beginnings. Both are from locales not my own; this is The South, where place more emphasis on the relationship than the product or service, but we seldom try to hide our intelligence behind meaningless banter unless distrustful of our hearers. ... perhaps that it why I felt somewhat offended by greeting by idioms vice ideas. Trust me, share what you think; be direct; "it's okay."
Measure & Improve Quality
Matching: public X