What an excellent idea: Generate new jargon that's incompatible with the jargon used from the field you suck at.
Perhaps concerned scientists and editors should reject the bifurcation here and take on the lingo of the field that creates the tool they have to use and need to learn better as a first step in learning to program in a more responsible manner?
That attitude seems a bit provincial: the usage may be uncommon in industry software development, but it's not rare in some areas of computer science. For example,
"Code" also has connotations (self-contained, numerical, etc.) that make it distinct from "program" or even "library". A routine in ATLAS is a code, but Microsoft Word is not.
I think you have the chronology backwards. The use of "code" as a mass noun dates to the 1960s at the earliest (actually, I can't find a good example before the 1970s in brief searching), while the use of "code" as a singular noun to mean "implemented algorithm", and "codes" as the plural, dates back at least to the 1950s.
My Chronology may still be backwards, but they still should swap over to the language of the mature field of software development's language to better allow themselves to integrate in good practices.
The bifurcation is still harmful to them even if the software usage originated later than the science term.
Context matters. e.g. misusing physics terminology in a political metaphor over drinks is annoying but inconsequential. Misusing physics terminology in papers where the bulk of the work was physics, or in an article for ACM about why computer scientists are bad at physics moves from eye-roll to WTF territory.
Yes, I hear this all the time. I know that the fancy course 6 kids here on HN would poo-poo it, but it's a very common usage in scientific computing. I can imagine the origins and can hypothesize about why it persists (the festering petri dishes of programming culture that is "grad school"), but don't have a definitive answer.
John Tukey is widely credited with coining the term "software" in print in 1958, but I'll wager that "codes" actually predates that.
Scientists say "code" because "machine code" is a bit of a mouthful. They say "machine" because their computers used to be people, and an interrupt meant running excitedly into Sir George Everest's tent. If entrepreneurs had invented the machines, we'd call them "electronic clerks".
When the manual is titled "Theoria combinationis observationum erroribus minimis obnoxiae", you know you're dealing with legacy code. In that case it's a pretty cool legacy, though.
From my experience, the most used languages in scientific programming are Fortran 90, C/C++, and Matlab with a considerable number of legacy codes written in FORTRAN 77.
Also, FORTRAN 77 is most definitely not an interpreted language.
I'm not sure why this is though.