From: Jamey Cribbs <jcribbs@...>
Date: 2007-04-27T00:32:35+09:00
Subject: Re: DHH vs. WHY style

James Britt wrote:
> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>
>> I also don't think whimsical names have to be unhelpful.  When I 
>> ported File::ReadBackwards from Perl, I named my version Elif.  I 
>> guess you have to "get that" before it helps, but I had to know what 
>> Facets was to even make guesses about the more helpful names.  Seems 
>> pretty comparable to me.
>>
>> So, I guess I'm a rebel:  I like cool names.
>
> I stand with you!  Raise the black flag!
>
> My main concern with purely descriptive names are that they may not 
> pass the Google test.  That is, if someone mentions it in a post and I 
> want to learn more, a reasonable search (e.g., ruby+code-name on 
> Google) should bring it up in the top 10.
>
> I'm not advocating the use of stereotypical Web 2.0 -style names, but 
> they need not be dry and lifeless.
>
>

+1 for whimsical names.


For the past few years I have participated in a charity volleyball 
tournament.  Being that my vertical jump can only be measured by an 
electron microscope, my chief contribution to our volleyball team has 
been coming up with colorful team names.  So, in the past few years, we 
have proudly battled as:

* The Ruptured Spleens

* The Irritable Bowels

and the ever popular

* The Loose Stools


Now, aren't those name much more fun than the more descriptive:

* Six Old Farts Who Can Barely Walk, Much Less Jump And Therefore Should 
Not Be Out Here Playing Volleyball


Jamey