That said, I easily get turned off by something if it isn't obvious within 10 minutes how it works. This really isn't that complex. I think people who read my post can overcome the weird word once they see how simple it is.
There's a large group of people where it helps to have the clojure connection; I'll keep posting practical examples of how it works and simply teaching. A name is not really that big of a deal.
But pandering to anti-intellectualism is extremely unfortunate. Irrational fear of new terminology is a major stumbling block to progress. There is a wealth of new things to discover that will require new modes of thinking, new concepts, and new terminology.
If devs wish to remain stagnant in their knowledge and their practice, that's fine. But in doing so, there's no reason why they should offer their opinions on matters they've chosen to ignore. I hope they'd have the intellectual humility to simply listen, rather than contribute noise to the discussion.
So a lot of people are going to see 'transducers.js' and think this is a library for interfacing I2S or 1-wire sensors to Node, or something.
That's not anti-intellectualism, it's pointing out that the word already has an established meaning among engineers, and trying to redefine it is going to mislead a lot of people about what this library is trying to do.
(defn sum [xs] (reduce + xs 0))
So in that respect, I think "transduce" better fits the concept of transformation, which is what this is all about.
see http://www.openfst.org and many others.
tacking on some random new etymology, 'transducer is just a combination of transform and reduce', is going to lead to all sorts of unnecessary confusion, made worse by the inherent similarities...