It's not wrong to say "steep learning curve" if you mean it's easy
I self labelled as pedantic and pointed to an explanation, that does not make me a prescriptivist, it makes me didactic.
I’m not relying on the Wikipedia article to support my claims. I’m relying on my native English language usage. I have literally never heard anyone in my life use the phrase “steep learning curve” in the way you use it. Not even once. However, I could have heard it in an ambiguous context and assumed that the speaker or writer intended to use it in the way that you do. I’ll admit, in that case, that I may have heard it used the same way you do, and assumed that they mean to use it in the way I do.
I am not making personal attacks here, so I hope I didn’t offend, not to suggest that your disagreement implies offense. If I did, I sincerely apologize.
I wonder if this is a case of certain phrases just being imprecise or ambiguous enough to be difficult to use in conversation or writing.
For example, suppose I applied some wax to a polished wood floor, way more than I thought I did or meant to apply originally.
Suddenly, you walk in from the next room or down the hall. I stop you before you slip and fall on the excess wax, saying, “Wait, I spilled a deceptively [small | large] amount of wax on the floor, and I haven’t cleaned it up yet.”
You stop in time, and don’t slip. I clean up the wax, and all is well.
If all you have is my single sentence to go on, whether I had said that I spilled a deceptively large or deceptively small amount of wax on the floor, and no additional context to know that I spilled too much wax on the floor, you might deduce from context that there must be too much wax, thus leading to a slipping hazard.
Now we’re having coffee later and I’m telling you about my vacation, and all the new flora and fauna I saw. I tell you about seeing a rare and elusive jabberwocky, and I told you it was deceptively [small | large]. Without further elaboration or context, you may struggle to deduce whether I mean that the jabberwocky is smaller or larger than expected or than it appeared, or both, or simply that it was smaller or larger than expected for jabberwockies, given just that single sentence.
Does that make sense? I used jabberwockies because they are literary creatures that do not exist in real life. You can replace them in the example with anything which you, the hypothetical listener or reader, is unfamiliar with enough to not know how small or large they are in relation to other referent in my vacation story, or anything else I was comparing it with in that context.
It appears that we can both be right, depending on usage and context. You may not agree, and seem not to; I find my usage appropriate for the contexts I use it in, and clarify with supporting statements in context so as to not confuse others, because I know that this phrase is used in both ways colloquially and mathematically.
To the degree that you insist that the phrase “steep learning curve” only has the one meaning you describe and use, I call your insistence prescriptivist. If you deny that others use the phrase correctly when they use it in ways that make sense, given the knowledge of how other people use it in ways that differ to your own, I would call that denial pedantic, and not didactic, but instead quirky, but otherwise okay, as long as we both understand what we each mean, and otherwise understand each other’s meaning and context.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/6209/what-is-mea...
I had no idea this was even ambiguous before your comment.
I've hitherto only considered the possibility that "deceptively large" means "large, but appeared otherwise. Having now googled this, it seems there's some debate about it, and while I can see both arguments, I think this is down to incorrect usage muddying the water.
In "A is deceptively B", "deceptively" is an adverb, so adding extra definition to the manner in which "A is B". Short of ignoring grammar rules entirely, I can't see a good case for arguing the opposite, even though it seems that examples exist where the sentence only makes logical sense by interpreting it as a negative.