On 2/15/07, Jesse Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that some sort of naming convention can be good, however...
> Looking at the naming conventions in other environments, it seems to
> me that the dilemma is usually solved by adding a environment-typical
> prefix like the "K" in KDE, the "G" in GNOME or the "i" for iLife
> products. Maybe we should go for that approach.
I really, really hate this route. As someone who works in marketing,
this is just a cheap way to get out of doing any sort of thinking
about what your project/application's identity is.
I second that. I absolute hate those prefixes. It's awful.
Please refrain from acronyms too :-)
I'd say, quentin is nailing it -- Meaningful applications names ? it's
beside the point if we have applications roles ! I'd much, much prefer
a "memorable" name than another acronyme, or another named slapped
with a one or two letter prefix. So better be inventive with the name
-- give it some character !
Now, we could have some kind of general "theme" regarding naming
(ideas welcomed), but really, I don't see all that as very important
(beside NOT using prefixes). What's important is to get the role
functionality up and running :)
--
Nicolas Roard
"La perfection, ce n'est pas quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, c'est
quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher." -- Antoine de St-Exupéry
_______________________________________________
Etoile-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
