On 5 September 2012 22:41, The Helmbolds <helmrp@yahoo.com> wrote:
1.4. Informative. Clearly indicates what the name refers to.
I'd definitely disagree with this: too many bland, uninspiring names come from attempts to squash a description into a name. Think of the most familiar or popular brands: it's hardly ever possible to relate the name to what they do. Python, Linux, Google, Apple, McDonalds... There are occasional counterexamples, like Microsoft or KFC, but a name certainly doesn't need to be descriptive.
1.5. Positive. Has strong positive connotations. Avoid negative connotations, as well as names easily parodied to become objects of derision (as happened to Microsoft’s “Back Office”).
There were quite a few jokes about feminine hygiene products when Apple announced the iPad. I think the product matters more than the humour value of the name. And parody isn't necessarily a bad thing: witness all the free publicity Mastercard has got from parodies of the 'priceless' ads. Although there are names that it's worth avoiding - I've heard rumours that an obstacle for the GIMP is that it's awkward to discuss it in formal contexts.
2.6. PyLab. Not unique. Well-known conflicts. (But one writer has suggested these might be resolvable!?)
Its existing uses are somewhat similar to the new proposal, and it's a name that this community already 'owns', in that the most familiar uses of it relate to our software. So we could repurpose it a bit. Inevitably there would be some confusion, but it could also work to our advantage - we don't need to get everyone used to a new name.
2.15.3. It’s attractive. [SciPyPlus]
I don't think attractiveness is something one person can definitively decide. I don't much care for that name, for instance. SciPyPlus sounds like a fork of scipy, and even past that it invites confusion ("SciPyPlus? I don't think I need anything complicated, maybe I should go and look for SciPy, that ought to be simpler while I get started. I'll look at the 'Plus' bits later." - user returns to all the complexity we were trying to save her from). Thanks, Thomas