From: MikkelFJ <mikkelfj-anti-spam@...>
Date: 2003-01-26T00:31:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Can we attack the 'not enough libraries' thing straight on?


<dblack@candle.superlink.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0301222111480.15882-100000@candle.superlink.net...
> > Please, let's not forget lessons we learnt - even today: someone was
> > asking for a Ruby Lisp interpreter. Now, what would that be called?
> > Language::LISP? Scheme.rb? No, of course, it was given the eminently
> > sensible name of Rouge, from which one could determine, well,
> > absolutely nothing at all, except that it might have something to do
> > with makeup. Naming is important!
>
> Yes, but what if there are five Lisp interpreters?  And what if some
> of them are better than others?  Same for SGML parsers, etc.  Somehow

We have seen this with Test::Unit which as I understand is a merger of two
earlier modules.
I think a module should be codenamed whatever - and at some point it may or
may not be integrated into a core language module where it would be given a
more clinical name - like Test::Unit.

That said, too many modules have too weird codenames - I stil have
difficulties remembering what Amrita and O... ehh O... you know the
framework that is also known as SeaSide for Smalltalk ... Really my brain
doesn't work that way.

One could codename modules like "Green Lisp" to distinguish it from a
potential future "Blue Lisp", yet I would instantly know it was a Lisp
module.

Mikkel