I 100% agree. Cutesy names should end once the package name has been chosen. Package authors and contributors that overdo the thematic names should stick to writing fiction, not code.
well, to see the exact opposite of "cutesy", please fork homebrew and give all of those things GUIDs for names, including all the packages a user could install; you'll soon see why the names chosen are quite acceptable, indeed.
This is the worst straw-man I've seen this year. Realistically, non-cute homebrew names would look like bin, libexec, repo, that is to say descriptive names that are already in common use, not GUIDs.
hm quite a sour take. I find that the names actually are reflective of an actual storage process so they fulfill both the playfulness and the natural naming.
I think homebrew is OK. It should be originated from the idea where the install script is user created instead of maintained by the original package author?
I mean in a way its right. One then need to go for professional companies, sign profession contracts, pay professional service fee and real professional sounding software
Comments
Ok, but I'm not really looking to my package manager for entertainment. To me this jargon is just needlessly obtuse.
I 100% agree. Cutesy names should end once the package name has been chosen. Package authors and contributors that overdo the thematic names should stick to writing fiction, not code.
"keg" and "bottle" are cutesy?
well, to see the exact opposite of "cutesy", please fork homebrew and give all of those things GUIDs for names, including all the packages a user could install; you'll soon see why the names chosen are quite acceptable, indeed.
This is the worst straw-man I've seen this year. Realistically, non-cute homebrew names would look like bin, libexec, repo, that is to say descriptive names that are already in common use, not GUIDs.
hm quite a sour take. I find that the names actually are reflective of an actual storage process so they fulfill both the playfulness and the natural naming.
It's skeuomorphism for the cli.
Yep, I found homebrew confusing exactly because of this 'bespoke' terminology.
I think homebrew is OK. It should be originated from the idea where the install script is user created instead of maintained by the original package author?
I mean in a way its right. One then need to go for professional companies, sign profession contracts, pay professional service fee and real professional sounding software