And those are in fact bad names. Just because they are used and popular doesn't make them good names.
I forget which language it was, but someone interviewed the creator and he said if he had to do anything different he would not have named it something so hard to google.
is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"?
Apple? C? when something gains critical mass it's really irrelevant anyway, since they become easy to google (atom shell is already a front page result for "electron").
or is the argument that they are bad names because they are not "relevant"? again.. Apple... C... if anything i'd say "electron" is super cliche and exactly the type of name i'd expect a library to have.
is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"?
It's not the only one, but it's certainly important. Especially for more obscure projects, or things that users will have lots of question about, if you can't google it, it's not going to succeed.
Apple? C?
Really? Those are you examples? Both of those were named before google even existed. They are very large, and hardly obscure. They don't need any help to be found.
or is the argument that they are bad names because they are not "relevant"?
No, that's not the argument.
if anything i'd say "electron" is super cliche and exactly the type of name i'd expect a library to have.
to say a name is bad because it is hard to Google is dehumanizing. the purpose of a name is not to maximize discoverability. it is a side effect. do you feel the same about band names?
"bad name" is, i'm sure you understand, in every instance, completely subjective. and your stance stands under scrutiny particularly in software, where names like this are ubiquitous.
to defend my examples, which for some reason you considered an exhaustive list, i present rails... bootstrap... backbone... react... apache... steam... chrome... express... should i keep going? even Yale's Neuron simulator is named NEURON.
my point is that your opinion seems to be the minority. which is fine, just gives you no ground to call your opinion "fact".
to say a name is bad because it is hard to Google is dehumanizing.
Hu? You are aware that programming languages are not human right? So how does one "dehumanize" something that isn't human in the first place?
the purpose of a name is not to maximize discoverability.
Actually, yes, it is. That is the number one goal of the name of a programing language or library. If I can not easily find out more about your product then you might as well not release it.
Are you confusing the names of humans with the names of programming languages? They serve different purposes.
And just to strengthen my point, actor names are required to be unique, if the name is a duplicate they make them change it. Yes, the actual human, is required to change their name. The actor guild understands what good names are.
Of course most people do not need to be searched for, but some do.
For example politicians with good names get more votes than those with bad names. (A good name for a politician is something easy to search, easy remember, easy to spell, and hard to make jokes about.) You might not like this fact about elections, but it is nonetheless true.
do you feel the same about band names?
Depends. Do bands need to be searched for to get additional information about them?
to defend my examples
Wait, so you are defending your example, by giving me more examples of bad names? How does that defend anything? You are just making my point for me.
Go search for some of those names, are see how the results are a mixture of different things instead of just the topic at hand.
I guess you have never come across some obscure language, and try to get more info about it, only to have most of your search results be about entirely irrelevant things?
Once you experience that you'll understand, that yes, it's a fact, not an opinion.
Hu? You are aware that programming languages are not human right?
you'll have to forigve the length of my response here, it is my only defense for someone so patronizing.
So how does one "dehumanize" something that isn't human in the first place?
you could deduce i was not referring to the dehumanization of software, i referring to the dehumanization of the art, rhyme and reason behind naming things. your notion that discoverability is "the number one goal of the name of a programing language or library" is also an opinion, and i posit that the authors of all the software i listed would consider it your opinion as well. that, or they are all incompetent.
in my previous post i tried to treat "discoverability" as a valid argument with respect to these names, but i must admit it sounds imaginary. all of the examples i provided, are by your measure are undiscoverable therefor "bad". yet somehow, everyone still finds them just fine, they are all insanely popular, Google returns the proper results on the front page, and the world keeps spinning.
And just to strengthen my point, actor names are required to be unique, if the name is a duplicate they make them change it. Yes, the actual human, is required to change their name. The actor guild understands what good names are.
the actors guild doesn't give a shit about "good names", they give a shit about protecting actors. that is why they exist. the reason they restrict unique names is so i cannot start acting under the name Jack Nicholson, receiving undeserved credit. does USPTO require unique trademarks because they "understand good names"?
Depends. Do bands need to be searched for to get additional information about them?
of course they do. just like a painting or song must be searched to find additional information. so band, painting, and song names are "bad" if they are hard to Google? this is what i consider dehumanizing. a name is a form of expression.
if i am naming my song, my band, or my library, i really don't care if you have trouble Googling it. i'm not naming it for you. and if my song, band, or library is of value to people, it will become discoverable despite it's name.
Go search for some of those names, are see how the results are a mixture of different things instead of just the topic at hand.
if your query does not return the results you want, it is your responsibility as a user to refine your query. for example, if you tried to Google "meteor" with the intent to research the space rock, half the front page results will be about an irrelevant software library. by your logic, this makes "meteor" a bad name for the space rock.
Wait, so you are defending your example, by giving me more examples of bad names? How does that defend anything? You are just making my point for me.
i am providing more "bad names" to prove my point that either you need to recalibrate your measure for "bad name", or everyone else does.
I guess you have never come across some obscure language, and try to get more info about it, only to have most of your search results be about entirely irrelevant things?
this is a loaded question. the definition of obscure here is "hard to Google", so of course an obscure language would be hard to Google. that said, even 8 years ago i had no trouble researching the Io language, when it was harder to find on Google than it is today. this is part of my basis for calling your argument imaginary.
there are nearly infinite examples of things succeeding despite their name being initially undiscoverable, and it is impossible to prove a single case where something failed because it's name was hard to Google. why am i defending the only side of the argument that has data to support it?
Comments
And those are in fact bad names. Just because they are used and popular doesn't make them good names.
I forget which language it was, but someone interviewed the creator and he said if he had to do anything different he would not have named it something so hard to google.
is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"?
Apple? C? when something gains critical mass it's really irrelevant anyway, since they become easy to google (atom shell is already a front page result for "electron").
or is the argument that they are bad names because they are not "relevant"? again.. Apple... C... if anything i'd say "electron" is super cliche and exactly the type of name i'd expect a library to have.
It's not the only one, but it's certainly important. Especially for more obscure projects, or things that users will have lots of question about, if you can't google it, it's not going to succeed.
Really? Those are you examples? Both of those were named before google even existed. They are very large, and hardly obscure. They don't need any help to be found.
No, that's not the argument.
Maybe you expect it, but it's a terrible name.
to say a name is bad because it is hard to Google is dehumanizing. the purpose of a name is not to maximize discoverability. it is a side effect. do you feel the same about band names?
"bad name" is, i'm sure you understand, in every instance, completely subjective. and your stance stands under scrutiny particularly in software, where names like this are ubiquitous.
to defend my examples, which for some reason you considered an exhaustive list, i present rails... bootstrap... backbone... react... apache... steam... chrome... express... should i keep going? even Yale's Neuron simulator is named NEURON.
my point is that your opinion seems to be the minority. which is fine, just gives you no ground to call your opinion "fact".
Hu? You are aware that programming languages are not human right? So how does one "dehumanize" something that isn't human in the first place?
Actually, yes, it is. That is the number one goal of the name of a programing language or library. If I can not easily find out more about your product then you might as well not release it.
Are you confusing the names of humans with the names of programming languages? They serve different purposes.
And just to strengthen my point, actor names are required to be unique, if the name is a duplicate they make them change it. Yes, the actual human, is required to change their name. The actor guild understands what good names are.
Of course most people do not need to be searched for, but some do.
For example politicians with good names get more votes than those with bad names. (A good name for a politician is something easy to search, easy remember, easy to spell, and hard to make jokes about.) You might not like this fact about elections, but it is nonetheless true.
Depends. Do bands need to be searched for to get additional information about them?
Wait, so you are defending your example, by giving me more examples of bad names? How does that defend anything? You are just making my point for me.
Go search for some of those names, are see how the results are a mixture of different things instead of just the topic at hand.
I guess you have never come across some obscure language, and try to get more info about it, only to have most of your search results be about entirely irrelevant things?
Once you experience that you'll understand, that yes, it's a fact, not an opinion.
you'll have to forigve the length of my response here, it is my only defense for someone so patronizing.
you could deduce i was not referring to the dehumanization of software, i referring to the dehumanization of the art, rhyme and reason behind naming things. your notion that discoverability is "the number one goal of the name of a programing language or library" is also an opinion, and i posit that the authors of all the software i listed would consider it your opinion as well. that, or they are all incompetent.
in my previous post i tried to treat "discoverability" as a valid argument with respect to these names, but i must admit it sounds imaginary. all of the examples i provided, are by your measure are undiscoverable therefor "bad". yet somehow, everyone still finds them just fine, they are all insanely popular, Google returns the proper results on the front page, and the world keeps spinning.
the actors guild doesn't give a shit about "good names", they give a shit about protecting actors. that is why they exist. the reason they restrict unique names is so i cannot start acting under the name Jack Nicholson, receiving undeserved credit. does USPTO require unique trademarks because they "understand good names"?
of course they do. just like a painting or song must be searched to find additional information. so band, painting, and song names are "bad" if they are hard to Google? this is what i consider dehumanizing. a name is a form of expression.
if i am naming my song, my band, or my library, i really don't care if you have trouble Googling it. i'm not naming it for you. and if my song, band, or library is of value to people, it will become discoverable despite it's name.
if your query does not return the results you want, it is your responsibility as a user to refine your query. for example, if you tried to Google "meteor" with the intent to research the space rock, half the front page results will be about an irrelevant software library. by your logic, this makes "meteor" a bad name for the space rock.
i am providing more "bad names" to prove my point that either you need to recalibrate your measure for "bad name", or everyone else does.
this is a loaded question. the definition of obscure here is "hard to Google", so of course an obscure language would be hard to Google. that said, even 8 years ago i had no trouble researching the Io language, when it was harder to find on Google than it is today. this is part of my basis for calling your argument imaginary.
there are nearly infinite examples of things succeeding despite their name being initially undiscoverable, and it is impossible to prove a single case where something failed because it's name was hard to Google. why am i defending the only side of the argument that has data to support it?