On 7/6/06 at 3:15 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Davis) wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/6/06 2:28 PM, "Joel Gwynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > True. One should also consider google-ability. Web::Application
> > could be as difficult to google as .NET.
>
> I further this sentiment. Sticking religiously to "name is function"
> satisfies one goal, but may fall short for others. Is there a big
> downside to "going out on a limb" with the name (perhaps within the
> Web:: namespace, perhaps not)?
Lots of other names, e.g.:
Maypole
Catalyst
Mason
Ruby on Rails
Django
don't imply "I'm a web application framework", but are instead branded
or marketed as such. Perhaps this approach would be better?
Andrew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
