> I like the word "modern" expressions because who wants to AVOID doing things > the "modern" way? And wouldn't you want to use a "sweet" notation? Just > letters don't do that.
Positive-association names are a double-edged thing. One the one hand they create positive associations. On the other their popularity creates contention for them inside people's heads. This risks diluting the association and making the name seem 'generic'. Lots of things are tagged 'modern' or 'sweet', so the name doesn't immediately remind me of what it means. When I chose the name 'wart' I was deliberately going against this trend, deliberately occupying a less-crowded, 'edgy' negative-association name. I'm not good at this, so it's probably a half-assed attempt :) But I did try to think about this. I was following Linus's example in the naming of git. (Another risk is that they create overly high expectations. I've seen projects at work called things like 'perfect streams', and the name almost instantly dooms them to failure. A negative name suggests it doesn't take itself too seriously, and reduces the risk of being dismissed out of hand at the first negative experience. Not sure if all this applies here, hence the parens.) On the other hand, 'sweet' is undergoing a transformation with all the negative publicity for sugar. It's losing its positive associations, almost to the point of becoming an edgy name like git :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
