Isn't it obvious from the context in this case? (Why would nuclear cold fusion be unpopular?) Admittedly younger devs may never have heard of the language. I have never seen examples of it in the wild, but I remember one of my university lectures talking about how good it was for a balance of usability and scale-ability - back in 2000.

not to be glib but the fact that its Capitalized and one word rather than 'cold fusion', should be enough no?

I was also confused. I thought this article was about how the cold fusion hobbyist movement is dying down because the topic is becoming unpopular. Fusion and cold fusion are discussed from time to time here, so it is not super obvious.

On a forum dedicated principally to programming I assume languages, the same way I assume the same when talking about Ruby and Python. (Instead of gemstones and snakes)

Perhaps proper spelling/casing: ColdFusion. Though the title here mirrors the article's title.

Huh, is cold fusion still a thing? I thought it went the way of the bussard ramjet.

It says it's unpopular right in the title of the article.

I was talking about the nuclear version/free energy thing mentioned by the parent. The language itself is probably more popular than the "tech", at least it demonstrably works.

Cold fusion isn’t free energy - I don’t know where you got that idea.

It is the way you identify any of the innumerable scams involving the idea of cold fusion.