The philosophical issue behind the disutility of project names like these is "Meno's Paradox"
On 8 December 2015 at 21:01, EuanM <[email protected]> wrote: > "I wish people would choose descriptive names for their projects" - Todd > > I agree. > > I went looking for the current state of dbxtalk recently. It seemed > to ba apackage designed for my needs - to X[-over] from a DB to > [small]talk. > > I went there and the the page started talking about "Glorp" and > "Garage". Neither are mnemonic or meaningful > > These projects are just the tip of the iceberg. > > Pharo project names have publisher-only project names. The project > name equivalent of write-only computer languages, like Brain-F**k. > > > On 7 December 2015 at 17:52, Todd Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote: >> Sigh. >> >> I wish people would choose descriptive names for their projects. I went >> looking on Smalltalkhub for some capability and what I found are thousands >> of packages with names that mean nothing and no description entered either. >> If you want to make sure nobody ever uses your code you've just taken a >> giant step in the right direction. But if you hope to make something lots >> of people benefit from - nobody is going to look for "mushroom" when they >> want crypto capabilities. >> >> Sorry, this has been really bugging me lately. We, as a community, do a >> lousy job of making our code easy to find. >> >> -Todd Blanchard >> >>> On Dec 7, 2015, at 07:38, Ben Coman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I like it, but it seems you missed my point :) >>> mushroom --> 117,000,000 is two orders of magnitude more hidden. >>> Anyway, maybe I overplay its significance. >>> cheers -ben >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Robert Withers >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I renamed the project to Mushroom and I also dumped the encoding work to >>>> focus on shutdown, optimization and serialization. Here's the wiki: >>>> https://github.com/SqueakCryptographySquad/Mushroom/wiki >>>> >>>> thanks,Robert >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/06/2015 01:42 AM, Ben Coman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Robert Withers >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12/05/2015 09:24 PM, Ben Coman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Robert Withers >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now I think you are right on with your observation. Additionally, the >>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>> of dialects could increase further with Fuel serialization, just port >>>>>>>> SecureSession and bits. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alright, I came up with a name and it may border on the egregious ... >>>>>>>> presenting ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Maelstrom" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Great sounding name. However some general advice for the community, >>>>>>> since I see a lot of great sounding project names drowned out in the >>>>>>> noise of our web-search-centric universe. A litmus test for project >>>>>>> naming is using google search to find which return low search results. >>>>>>> Today, its more important to be unique than any other attribute of a >>>>>>> name. So in general, *dictionary* english words are not the best. >>>>>>> One technique is to intentionally mispell the word you like. Here are >>>>>>> some comparative examples (note, the surrounding quotes are required >>>>>>> to avoid google trying to be helpful and correct the spelling)... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "maelstrom" --> 7,480,000 >>>>>>> "maelstroom" --> 6,200 >>>>>>> "maelstrum" --> 2,280 >>>>>>> "maelstruum" --> 7 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Lots of interesting other techniques can be found by searching on: >>>>>>> techniques to generate brand names or domain names. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers -ben >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would be happy to change the names to something more unique, though it >>>>>> may >>>>>> take a few. Are you suggesting "maelstruum"? >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers, >>>>>> Robert >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Suggesting* yes, but the choice is yours ;) You need to own it. >>>>> >>>>> I think maelstruum is certainly memorable with the double "u", but >>>>> maybe jarring next the the "m". I'm inclined to maelstroom, since I >>>>> associate it with "zoom". I wouldn't necessarily go for the absolute >>>>> lowest results. I have an entirely unsubstantiated belief that >>>>> anything less than 10,000 gives a reasonable chance to compete once a >>>>> user's browsing history is taken into account. Finally you need to >>>>> check existing results don't return something abhorrent (I didn't do >>>>> this). >>>>> >>>>> I'd encourage to play around testing on google search. Its quick and >>>>> easy to generate and test alternatives. I've added a few more below. >>>>> "maelstra" --> 3,560 >>>>> "maelstram" --> 504 >>>>> "maelstrim" --> 1200 >>>>> "maelstroon" --> 58 >>>>> "maelstroomi" --> 4 >>>>> >>>>> btw, I wouldn't swap the order of the "ae" since that would be >>>>> susceptible to real typing errors. >>>>> >>>>> cheers -ben >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >>
