From: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...>
Date: 2007-07-12T20:06:03+09:00
Subject: Re: package names (Was: god 0.1.0 released)

On 11/07/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's try this again (I already replied to this once but lost it in
> the aether somehow...)
>
> On Jul 10, 11:24 am, "pat eyler" <pat.ey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The Ruby community has long held that names are important for methods
> > -- they should be descriptive and help the programmer.  We've never done
> > a very good job with names for projects/libraries (at least in my opinion),
> > maybe it's time for us all to spend a little more time and effort in that
> > direction.
>
> Are you suggesting that we should start moving in the Java direction
> with regards to library naming? Perhaps your are right. Perhaps that
> someone has now named a library "God" is a real omen. It's a tuffy
> though. Creative names have been a hallmark of Ruby, with _why being
> sort of the exemplar. I suspect, to move in the other direction would
> require a real campaign on the part of the community, especially Matz,
> the RubyGems teams, and the RubyForge guys.
>
> The topic interests me a good bit because I have broken Facets down
> into a bunch of little mini-projects. Any of which could easily be
> packaged and distributed independently -- and I have flirted with
> doing so. But it's problematic for a couple of reasons.
>
> Firstly, there's nearly 100 of these mini-projects, and most have
> fairly generic names. (I don't want to get too creative, or I won't be
> able to find anything!) So If I released them as such I'd quickly soak

And that's what this is about I guess. The creative names are often
hard to search for if you do not know the name in advance.

Or as I heard "The upside of creativity is that you can come up with
many interesting things. The downside is the same. " ;-)

Thanks

Michal