News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by dzhiurgis on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @10:16AM (#32824576)
Better be consistently boring than ever misleading
Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by badhombres on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @10:21AM (#32824636)
But as products evolve, their boring names become misleading. At least with non-boring names you can re-define what they represent in your company.
Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by khazhoux on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @01:22PM (#32827355)
Do products/components really evolve so much that the name frequently become outdated?

Half the article is like, "There was a component called YamlParser, which is now a browser-based stable-diffusion renderer!"

Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by ThePadawan on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @01:53PM (#32827875)
I've worked on tools that were slightly misnamed after 6 months, and completely misnamed after 2 years. At that point they were also usually just nearly useless due to feature bloat and/or lack of scalability, so deprecated or replaced with something better.

They didn't change names, but their successors would get a new one.

Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by badhombres on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @02:15PM (#32828194)
Yep, enough that they need a caveat every time someone new is told of the product. It happens, and it's gotten worse due to Agile.
Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by version_five on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @07:01PM (#32831240)
Look at IBM "Watson". It had evolved from an AI jeopardy and Q&A engine into basically whatever salespeople make up.
Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by hbrn on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @11:14AM (#32825370)
Isn't it even harder to re-define names in a company? There might be 3 people involved in re-definition, but it affects 15 people.

How are we going to notify those 15? Do we even know who those 15 are? Are we going to create a weekly redefinition newsletter?

I think in most cases new meaning deserves a new name. Everything else is just hacks.

How hard is it to change a name is a actually a really good metric for a company. If a simple rename takes several days, multiple approvals, rounds of QA, and a scheduled release next quarter, then you probably need those hacks.

Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by badhombres on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @12:20PM (#32826369)
I think that's very extreme. Products grow at a gradual pace. I don't think there are defining moments when a product no longer supports something, or is no longer used in a way that it was intended to.

I would argue it's easier to maintain peoples understanding of a product since that will also be done gradually. It's not easy to update naming inside of a code base without potentially breaking software significantly or causing unknown bugs elsewhere. I think most software would fail the renaming test. It's also generally not worth the money and time needed to make that change.

Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by ThePadawan on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @10:55AM (#32825080)
Terrific answer!

No idea which way you're arguing though! ;)

Re:Software component names should be whimsical and cryptic by yarg on Tuesday September 13, 2022 @08:29PM (#32831848)
Better to be googlable than boring.