I am most of the way through my games programming degree. This is not a computer science degree, so a lot of the theory is eschewed in favour of practical portfolio building and what I see as JIT learning, which is apparently more important in the games industry. The first subject was "Introduction to Object-Oriented Programming".
That phrase didn't bother me until I learned about the different programming paradigms (I'm getting this list from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_paradigms):
I get that this is not an exhaustive list, and that not all of these concepts are equal, and most of them aren't even exclusive, but I don't understand why most of them get just one word - imperative; functional; declarative - but when we talk about programming with objects, we have to clarify that we are oriented around those objects. Can't we just use objects? Can't we just have objects? Why must they orient us, as our guiding star?
Looking here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming), nowhere is the use of the term "oriented" addressed as its own term. Only "object" is explained.
Also, I can see for practical reasons why Event-Driven is used, because Event Programming is already a thing that you do when you're running a conference, and Automata Programming makes it sound like you're setting up a robotic production line, so it helps to have additional clarifying words there.
What makes Object Programming, as a phrase, not enough to describe what we do when we use objects in our programming?
Obviously from my tone I'm not too fond of the word "oriented". It reminds me of my time as a court reporter, listening to lawyer after lawyer use the phrase "in relation to" as a kind of verbal tick. It didn't mean anything; it was just a term that they used to fill the air while they tried to think of what to say next. However, I'm not trying to advocate a change of language, I'm just asking why it is the way it is. If someone knows why it came to be known that way for purely historical, vestigial reasons, then that's the answer. It will be ammunition if I ever decide to waste my time advocating for a change of language.
On the other hand, if there is actually a useful reason for why a language or piece of code must point towards objects, to the exclusion of all other directions, as opposed to merely having them in its toolbelt, as tools, I would really be interested to learn about it. I like learning useful things.