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

181–190 of 498 posts

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#181

Post by gilbetron »

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"!

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#182

Post by xtiansimon »

Funny trifle.

I too like cute names at high levels of abstraction, because descriptions or explanations shouldn’t clash with the named bits—particularly in documentation.

But when a named thing doesn’t escape the code files, then it has to be descriptive. My projects take too long, and coming back to a too cute name is a PITA.

The exception is I use verb+cute name for command line script names.

Naming is hard, but also fun.

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#183

Post by xeyownt »

AYBABTME wrote: post #148

How about making them descriptively memorable: - shifting-priorities-routing-service - indiscrete-secrets-vault - gdrp-user-immolator - knock-knock-whos-this-authn - canihaz-authz I don't buy the "can't rename services" arguments though. It's also hard to rename variables, modules and stuff. We do it. I'll tell the PM I need to rename this function if they want to know what I'm up to. How often does a service morph s…

The advantage of making cute is that you can also make them small.

I would really hate using shifting-priorities-routing-service all over the place, in particular in combination with steady-allocating-routing-service.

Between cute/descriptive, long/small, it all depends on how often/where/long these names are used.

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#184

Post by hgomersall »

michaelmior wrote: post #142
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. I think this point from the article gets to the harder part. > Once you've said a name, it starts to stick in people's heads, and it slips beyond your control. Other people use the name in conversation and it ripples out through the organization. Technical modifications to change a name are one thing. Once people a…

It's worse than that - the name is a brand so develops value in its own right. It's not just hard to change the name in peoples' minds, it's downright damaging (unless your product was crap, in which case changing the name might be a good strategy).

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#185

Post by superb-owl »

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're "not determined enough" (pause development! take the data loss!) but it just doesn't make business sense to pursue it.

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#186

Post by tremon »

xtiansimon wrote: post #182

Funny trifle. I too like cute names at high levels of abstraction, because descriptions or explanations shouldn’t clash with the named bits—particularly in documentation. But when a named thing doesn’t escape the code files, then it has to be descriptive. My projects take too long, and coming back to a too cute name is a PITA. The exception is I use verb+cute name for command line script names. Naming is hard, but al…

My thoughts exactly. Cute names are identities: you apply them to things that are unique and where the purpose is malleable. Functional names are descriptions: they capture the thing's purpose, not its identity.

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#187

Post by xeyownt »

jeroenhd wrote: post #118
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…

Would this be easier if you needed to integrate with user-provider-service, timestamp-conversion-service, image-storage-service (which also stores videos these days, though HEIFF and h.265 has obviously been moved to iOS-image-storage-service so customers can be billed for the special software that requires patents) to upload a signed SecuredApplicationPackage file to InternalExternalSoftwareManager so that it can be…

Couldn't have said it better.

Overall, common sense should be the rule, not "always descriptive / always cute".

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#189

Post by rapnie »

moffkalast wrote: post #151
alexvoda wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kawai Wasabi is incompatible with Yakotori. It is a known choice by the lead developer. When using Yakotori you should use Tare instead.

Yeah but Tare doesn't scale as well as Marmot, plus it has Tenimoshi support.

I remember Yashi worked on this support, it is great.

Re: Names should be cute, not descriptive

#190

Post by andylynch »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #10

Cute names are fun when for a few special things here and there. Cute names are a nightmare when a company has accumulated hundreds of quirkily named things that you have to memorize just to navigate through the basics of trying to get your job done. New hires suffer the most. It’s an extra layer of company-specific jargon that you have to learn to even begin to understand what your peers are talking about.

Also becomes awkward and distracting having to explain to other peoples’ lawyers (or government officials!) what those cute names represent when things go wrong.
Post reply on HN