What an excellent idea: Generate new jargon that's incompatible with the jargon used from the field you suck at.
Perhaps concerned scientists and editors should reject the bifurcation here and take on the lingo of the field that creates the tool they have to use and need to learn better as a first step in learning to program in a more responsible manner?
That attitude seems a bit provincial: the usage may be uncommon in industry software development, but it's not rare in some areas of computer science. For example,
"Code" also has connotations (self-contained, numerical, etc.) that make it distinct from "program" or even "library". A routine in ATLAS is a code, but Microsoft Word is not.
I think you have the chronology backwards. The use of "code" as a mass noun dates to the 1960s at the earliest (actually, I can't find a good example before the 1970s in brief searching), while the use of "code" as a singular noun to mean "implemented algorithm", and "codes" as the plural, dates back at least to the 1950s.
My Chronology may still be backwards, but they still should swap over to the language of the mature field of software development's language to better allow themselves to integrate in good practices.
The bifurcation is still harmful to them even if the software usage originated later than the science term.
Context matters. e.g. misusing physics terminology in a political metaphor over drinks is annoying but inconsequential. Misusing physics terminology in papers where the bulk of the work was physics, or in an article for ACM about why computer scientists are bad at physics moves from eye-roll to WTF territory.
Perhaps concerned scientists and editors should reject the bifurcation here and take on the lingo of the field that creates the tool they have to use and need to learn better as a first step in learning to program in a more responsible manner?