Motivation: Speaker needs to add credibility to whatever programming technique he is pushing
Intent: The key has a strong awareness of which words and phrases are currently fashionable.
Implementation: This brief extract from a recent talk demonstrates the point:
Talk giver, hitting a climax: ...so you see, you can use this approach to inject a functional approach into an existing framework.
Delegate, raising arm: Isn't that very object-oriented?
Talk giver, hastily: Oh, no. It's not object-oriented. It's not object-oriented at all. It's very fluent and lightweight.
Delegate subsides, satisfied and impressed.
Examples: Long ago, the writer heard Bjarne Stroustrup himself complain that "object-oriented" had become a marketing synonym for "good". Many clichés have coursed through the culvert since then, and now it has become a coded term for "old-fashioned" - which is pretty much the same as "bad", to one decimal place.
It is not enough, then, for a speaker to speak in buzzing-words and fizzing-phrases. The key is to be aware of how much of their credibility remains to be spent, and to avoid worn-out terms loaded with non-technical debt.
Here is a small kut-out-'n'-keep table of examples, current as of writing, to get you started:
(1.0 best, -1.0 worst)
|design by contract||-0.82|
|unit test (as noun)
|unit test (as verb)
Observation: What's that Sooty? This whole article depends on the jargon word "pattern", and you have shown it to be a spent force?
Aaargh, you got me. ®