Agreed, this article was a very poor read from the perspective of a programmer (yours truly) having a working familiarity with only two or three of these concepts.
Given the article's slapdash, loosely-coherent English and tendency to pad out each equation's section with references to even more equations--and not explanation of usefulness--I wish I hadn't tried to read it, for it was very frustrating. I suppose the article might provoke interesting discussion among the mathy set, the same way that a list of "top patterns" might start a discussion among OO fans.
This effect is often true for people whose native language is math :-) But to be fair most disciplines have their own jargon, math happens to have its own keyboard too.
Most other disciplines don't try to force their jargon onto other fields though. Math often does.
Also, I'd generally say that almost all jargon is bad. A quote that's frequently attributed to Einstein says that "If you cannot explain something in simple terms, you do not have adequately understood it". Math and science in general should take this to heart, because I feel that many people have forgotten this or never really understood it in the first place.
