It's possible that's what he meant, but that's not how I understand the term.
Stockholm syndrome refers is a victim forming emotional bonding with his or her captor[1]. Which would mean in instances like this, where the "captor" is a voluntary choice of language, the term is used akin to "masochism" (albeit without the sexual element). In essence, saying "the pleasure from use feature x is derived from the pain of using feature x".
Which is why I commented that "Stockholm syndrome" is a needlessly colourful way if saying "I disagree".
The "masochism" aspect makes Go part of Bondage and Discipline languages:
Re:I Love Go; I Hate Go
by fauigerzigerk on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @08:21AM
(#12209358)
Yes, but it requires that the victim has no way out. Stockholm syndrome is not just any unexpected change of preferences.
The victim has no way out short of switching languages which may or may not be under their control.
Re:I Love Go; I Hate Go
by fauigerzigerk on Tuesday August 02, 2016 @10:53AM
(#12210370)
Stockholm syndrome, as far as I know, was observed in situations of physical threat to life or health with the only way out being death.
>That's a very negative way of saying "that's not my personal behavioral preference"
In my experience, Stockholm syndrome is not used to describe personal behavioral preferences, but rather (unexpected) transitions between such preferences from the negative to the positive.
In the grandparent's own words:
>>> i was shocked by that at first too. Then I came to love it.