Rubyists don't call these things annotations. One of the things I like doing is to find common techniques that cross languages, for me this is a common technique and 'annotation' seems like a good generic word for it. I don't know if Rubyists will agree.

Someone could mean to say different thing by each of them, but there's hardly any common agreement.

the nomenclature seems to be totally confused

will only apply up the chain

In agent-oriented programming the antonym is depender, though in general usage the common term dependent is used instead. There is no common language equivalent for dependee', however – other metaphors are used instead, such as parent/child. The circumlocutions “A depends on B” and “B is depended on by A” are much more common in general use than “A is the depender, B is the ' dependee ”.

I think it is still problematic since many people in the software industry use and understand "dependency" to mean the thing on which something depends (as indicated by this and other answers). So saying "being a dependency" indicates to those people the thing on which something depends, which is the opposite of the way I think of it (and what it means according to the dictionary).

if you’re just the casual web surfer type, learning about Internet terminology might not be of much real use to you

There may be times that required owned elements are missing, for example, while editing or while loading a data set. When a widget is missing required owned elements due to script execution or loading, authors MUST mark a containing element with aria-busy equal to true. For example, until a page is fully initialized and complete, an author could mark the document element as busy.

Longstanding controversy surrounds the meaning of the term "hacker". In this controversy, computer programmers reclaim the term hacker, arguing that it refers simply to someone with an advanced understanding of computers and computer networks[5] and that cracker is the more appropriate term for those who break into computers, whether computer criminals (black hats) or computer security experts (white hats).

State changes flow from the roots of this graph (which we call atoms) through pure functions (which we call selectors) and into components.

The misspelling of referrer originated in the original proposal by computer scientist Phillip Hallam-Baker to incorporate the field into the HTTP specification.[4] The misspelling was set in stone by the time of its incorporation into the Request for Comments standards document RFC 1945; document co-author Roy Fielding has remarked that neither "referrer" nor the misspelling "referer" were recognized by the standard Unix spell checker of the period.

one problem with 'behavior' is that's the terminology we use to describe all of a component's encapsulated logic — methods, transitions, etc.

Suffering

In systems engineering and requirements engineering, a non-functional requirement (NFR) is a requirement that specifies criteria that can be used to judge the operation of a system, rather than specific behaviors. They are contrasted with functional requirements that define specific behavior or functions

Also known as "serverless", "client-side", or "static" web apps, unhosted web apps do not send your user data to their server. Either you connect your own server at runtime, or your data stays within the browser.

Docker images

container images

container technology

I am increasingly concerned when I hear my colleagues refer to themselves with computer metaphors—“I don’t have the bandwidth,” “I have to boot up,” or “I need to recharge.”

I'd say that "dump" in the CS sense, both as noun and verb, is merely another application of its preexisting meanings even without the vulgar one, particularly the ones related to unloading/releasing contents. (For example, "dump truck".)

For some geeky reason, the computer programming world has long maintained a tradition of using words in new ways, with a studied obliviousness to their prior, rude meanings: for example, 'dump'. 'Falsey' is merely another word in this long, and quite useful, tradition.

Doing something programatically generally means that you can do it using source code, rather than via direct user interaction or a macro.

The reason SO users explicitly say "programmatically" is to reaffirm that they're asking "programming code" questions and not "IT-style" questions