Re:Names should be cute, not descriptive
by Conan_Kudo on Tuesday January 10, 2023 @07:29AM
(#34323809)
> is it ever a problem in software engineering, that you can't remember what that component's name is?
Yes. When the names are descriptive or bland, it's almost impossible to remember what it is.
Question wasn't if people forget names in software, it's whether forgetting names is a problem. Like I forget names of things in the codebase MULTIPLE times per day, but I don't, and am not aware of anyone naming variables, functions etc in order for them to be memorable (as opposed to descriptive). I neither need nor want to memorize those names, I have other things more interesting to fill up my memory with.
> I find it more of the problem when people make a good library that solves a problem with a predictable name, but then they give their library some other cute name
This is why I said Boaty McBoatface. You look for Boats? It has "boat" literally two times in it's name.
No you were clearly arguing for "memorable". Do you argree now that it's a worthless quality for a name? (in software engineering)
Re:Names should be cute, not descriptive
by atoav on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @03:20AM
(#34336309)
I disagree that it is worthless.
What I agree with is that it is not strictly necessary, but that is a label that you can stick on a lot of things. Things that make our lives easier. Memorability of names is not a necessity in software engineering, just as is descriptiveness, but it certainly does not hurt.
is it ever a problem in software engineering, that you can't remember what that component's name is?
I find it more of the problem when people make a good library that solves a problem with a predictable name, but then they give their library some other cute name, and maybe they don't do SEO well on package repositories (why would they, software engineers). So, when I look npm up for that problem, their lib would not even come up.