Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Names should be cute, not descriptive

ntietz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 498 posts

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#241

Post by deltarholamda »

beefield wrote: post #110

Well, I have worked in an environment where database server names were server software version concatenated with a shortish but high entropy random alphanumeric string. I'll take cute or descriptive any day over that.

I've heard the "cattle not pets" argument for servers, but I hate that. Naming a server is like naming a boat. I've done it where everything is named after astronomers, or physicists, or even comic strip characters, but I also like it when a server is named, well, with a name.

"Hey guys, Jeff is throwing errors again, need somebody to find out what Jeff's problem is."

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#242

Post by Scubabear68 »

bmitc wrote: post #128

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…

I agree with you. The cutesy names also derail a lot of conversations if you try to explain key points of your architecture to non-technical users (eg doing a high level RCA after a major outage with management).

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#243

Post by pfix »

williamcotton wrote: post #234
whoisthemachine wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too have worked in code bases that have included one or two company name changes in them, and it can really add unnecessary noise to the source. So I think this is actually a counter-argument for using "cutesy" names - swap "cutesy" with "branded" names, and you may see what I mean. This is a basic thing I learned early on and teach others - do your best to not include the name of a product in your codebase, rather…

The problem with using a brand name in code is that the audience for the brand name is external to the company and subject to change due to conditions in the market. The problem with descriptive names arises when it becomes hard to distinguish between components named “AdServer, “AdRendererServer”, “AdStorageServer”. It’s liking naming a WWII bomber “Fuddy Duffy” and painting Elmer Fudd on the side. It’s a lot easier…

Isn't that why namespaces were invented? You put those in the namespace `AdServer: { Server, Renderer, Storage }`

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#244

Post by crispyambulance »

bmitc wrote: post #128

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…

> ...software engineers cause their own problems

yep. I once inherited a bunch of C++ applications in which the class hierarchies were named after Lord of the Rings characters. FML!

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#246

Post by threatofrain »

GuB-42 wrote: post #197
bmitc wrote: post #128

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…

> No they’re not. People just aren’t determined or organized. You just provided your own counterargument. People naturally aren't determined or organized, that's why names are hard to change. You can't change human nature, you can only work around it, and cute names are a solution for that. Cute names work even if people are disorganized, and they are. Furthermore, cute name, rather than purely generic or descriptive…

Really not sure this works for homebrew with their brew and tap and keg naming theme.

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#247

Post by the_af »

It seems the author correctly points out some problems with descriptive names, but then advocates for "fun" names without explaining how they deal with the problems. So the solution is that they are "more fun" and give up on solving the problems whatsoever?

I've dealt with cute names in past jobs. Because they are meaningless ("Thoth"? I think that's an Egyptian god, but what does it do?) I've spent months confused. And when I didn't deal with them, I forgot what they did, especially since in the microservices world there's so many of them.

I'd rather have a slightly outdated but descriptive name than a completely meaningless "cute" name.

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#248

Post by Spivak »

superb-owl wrote: post #185
bmitc wrote: post #128

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…

> Trouble is, names are hard to change. > No they’re not. People just aren’t determined or organized. This is very untrue. Many moons ago my company changed its name, and we still have the old name lingering around in stupid places. There are e.g. several third-party services which simply won't let us change the name and carry our data forward, or where proper migration would take eng-months. I guess you could say we…

Another example is Discord. In the beginning Discord servers were called Guilds and that's still their name in all their documentation and APIs. So it's more than company names.

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#249

Post by danparsonson »

gilbetron wrote: post #181
germanfella wrote: post #55

I made an account on HN because this is the worst post I have ever read here. NO!!!! DON'T USE CUTE NAMES!!! I am currently working with a big company for my apps and it is full of cute names which are the biggest problem for me. To launch an app you have first to integrate the Zaamla-Service into your IDE. Then just patch things up with Pimble, upload the signed HIMA-Package into the Katala and activate after that Z…

Right? It's like having to "google" to find out how to use your "apple" to interface with "postgres" that's running on "linux"! It should be "global-web-searcher-1", "computer-vendor-17", "database-18" and "open-source-operating-system-derived-from-another-operating-system"!

Exactly! That's why I always advocate giving every monitor in an office its own unique name (mine is Moe!) and every keyboard, chair, desk, etc. Who wants to use those stuffy descriptive generic names??

Obviously trademarks and other product names are more useful if they're unique; Google, Apple, etc. are not components of a system, they're products. It's like getting your car fixed - they don't tell you the Jane and the two front Turnipheads need replacing, now do they?

Post reply on HN