There is a nuance though, because a language simply being interpreted does not mean it is being used as a scripting language. Take for example Java and C#, those languages are interpreted by default which allow you to ship platform-agnostic binaries and a bunch of other neat features. C# can be used as a scripting language, whenever it is interpreted, but it does not have too. It is an important nuance and this is why you can't just replace the term "scripting language" entirely. You can also compile C# directly into machine code, skipping the interpreter entirely. Technically, there is nothing stopping you from writing an application that use C# as a scripting language even without the interpreter, since you can compile c# to machine code and simply dynamically load the library at runtime (kind of like Unity does). I guess you could call those "embedded languages", and it would mean almost exactly the same thing, but then, aren't we back to the same problem of some developers taking offence from that? I mean, it does imply that the language does not stand on its own without machine code just as well, which is true. This is one weird hill to have a bruised ego over for those developers you've met. Words have meaning and this one just happen to be a right fit given the description. I have a feeling from this whole exchange that you didn't know what scripting languages were, considering how you replied to my first post. I worked in development for over a decade and I have never seen it be used with negative implications. I really just think you personally projected your own feeling onto a term you didn't understand. No offence intended, it happens.