151–160 of 498 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even HN frontpage sometimes be "How I use Kawai Wasabi on Yakotori under Sashimi" and there'd be 100 comments, all of them serious. Makes one feel excluded.
Kawai Wasabi is incompatible with Yakotori. It is a known choice by the lead developer. When using Yakotori you should use Tare instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even HN frontpage sometimes be "How I use Kawai Wasabi on Yakotori under Sashimi" and there'd be 100 comments, all of them serious. Makes one feel excluded.
Kawai Wasabi is incompatible with Yakotori. It is a known choice by the lead developer. When using Yakotori you should use Tare instead.
A service that stores something can be called "catalog" and it is descriptive, short and memorable. On the other hand, a service that does too many things can be called "zeus" or "cyclops" or whatever and that's okay too. It's difficult to have memorable and short names when things do too many things, or as mentioned in the post, they might change responsibilities.
Also, when you have something descriptive composed of multiple words (like "data-streaming-analyzer") people will certainly start using acronyms (DSA) and then you're back to short names than don't mean anything.
There's a world where everything is not called "pikachu", "cyclops", "potter" and "tortilla", nor "main-store-red-website", "download-analytics-store-and-processing", "sells-stream-processor". Use both. They are both useful!
But if you can guarantee that something will continue to be one thing for ever and ever, I think maybe a descriptive name can work. It really depends on what level of analysis you're working on. Services probably shouldn't change their core purpose over-time, but business pressures may result in them changing their core purpose.
I could not disagree more. > Trouble is, names are hard to change. No they’re not. People just aren’t determined or organized. > It's impossible to predict with certainty how your software's requirements will evolve over time. You don’t need to predict it. You evolve things as needed, including names of components of the system. The idea that you need to pick a generic name because you don’t want to specify exactly w…
A. Having fun yourself over the course of a week.
B. Getting a job done and helping your coworkers get their job done over the course of years.
Everyone calls it Epiphany anyway.
So yeah I agree.
Very good points and for many things, I think this applied very well.
I could not disagree more. > Trouble is, names are hard to change. No they’re not. People just aren’t determined or organized. > It's impossible to predict with certainty how your software's requirements will evolve over time. You don’t need to predict it. You evolve things as needed, including names of components of the system. The idea that you need to pick a generic name because you don’t want to specify exactly w…
Cute names are fun for the people creating them and writing code. They are stressful for the people trying to make sense of code and maintain a product under a deadline. The question is, which matters more: A. Having fun yourself over the course of a week. B. Getting a job done and helping your coworkers get their job done over the course of years.
I could not disagree more. > Trouble is, names are hard to change. No they’re not. People just aren’t determined or organized. > It's impossible to predict with certainty how your software's requirements will evolve over time. You don’t need to predict it. You evolve things as needed, including names of components of the system. The idea that you need to pick a generic name because you don’t want to specify exactly w…
> You know what is fun when it comes to work? Things that work, are named appropriately, are understandable, and people not needing trivialities I don’t know I agree with this. Microsoft has taken the descriptive naming style all the way down to products. Not only names like Batch or Functions don’t add much value, but also it makes searching information about them much harder than “cute” names (such as Excel). I als…
For the big cloud providers, I've definitely seen people struggle with the names. Is it Google Compute Engine or Google Cloud Engine? Which one is which of Google Cloud Run and Google Compute Engine? Amazon Route 53? Route 57? 35?
I guess the bigger the service the more creative name it should have?