Half the article is like, "There was a component called YamlParser, which is now a browser-based stable-diffusion renderer!"
They didn't change names, but their successors would get a new one.
How are we going to notify those 15? Do we even know who those 15 are? Are we going to create a weekly redefinition newsletter?
I think in most cases new meaning deserves a new name. Everything else is just hacks.
How hard is it to change a name is a actually a really good metric for a company. If a simple rename takes several days, multiple approvals, rounds of QA, and a scheduled release next quarter, then you probably need those hacks.
I would argue it's easier to maintain peoples understanding of a product since that will also be done gradually. It's not easy to update naming inside of a code base without potentially breaking software significantly or causing unknown bugs elsewhere. I think most software would fail the renaming test. It's also generally not worth the money and time needed to make that change.
No idea which way you're arguing though! ;)
