I question the notion that, just because the terms we use match up with another discipline (and this is likely not the only one), we are necessarily drawing a direct comparison with that other discipline by using those terms.

Programming/development/whatever is full of ridiculous terms. We co-opt them from anywhere we want, we make them up, we apply them in multiple outlandish ways. We don't really need a reason, because "we" in this case means "people who decide what to call things," and it's not as though we have a Bureau of Naming for the Computational Applied Sciences running around forcing us to use good metaphors.

I can see it being fun to throw around theories about how we came to use the various terms that occur in our field, but I definitely don't see them as being strict (or even, in most cases, loose) direct references to the same terms' usage in other fields. Sometimes a term works for someone; sometimes the generic terms that work for different people line up in ways that make sense in more than one context.

This just reads too much into that.