SciPy Naming Criteria and Their Application

1. On Criteria for Names: Names are so terribly important. But just saying you “like” a name means nothing without reasons why it’s valued more than others. Valuing one name over another requires careful, objective, and thoughtful weighing of the reasons one name is preferred over another. That requires formally applying some very explicit evaluation criteria/desiderata that are as objective as possible. Those that appear to me to be useful are listed below. They’re not listed in any particular order and you may add your own as you see fit. The “uniqueness” criterion is pretty objective, while the rest are largely but not entirely objective. The criteria for names are:

1.1. Unique: Cannot use any trademarked or propriety names, and must avoid names easily confused with similar words commonly used in a different sense.

1.2. Memorable. Short; easily pronounced; easily remembered.

1.3. Attractive. Draws the reader's eye; stimulates interest; encourages learning more about the thing named.

1.4. Informative. Clearly indicates what the name refers to.

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”).

2. Application of These Criteria to Some Suggested Names:

2.1. KnowPy. Not informative. Could be a knowledge-base program or a primer on Python.

2.2. MatSysPy. Not unique enough. Conflicts with existing “Matsys Corporation” and the “MATSYS” home design company names.

2.3. NumLab. Not unique. Conflicts with the “NumLab” scripting language.

2.4. PyCraft. Not unique. Conflicts with “Pycraft Legal Services” of St. Augustine, FL, and with the “PyCraft open-source game engine” under development elsewhere. It’s also not informative – could refer to arts-and-crafts stuff like needlepoint.

2.5. PyEngine. Not unique. Conflicts with Mango’s “PyEngine” and many others. It’’s also not informative – could refer to automotive engines.

2.6. PyLab. Not unique. Well-known conflicts. (But one writer has suggested these might be resolvable!?)

2.7. PyScis. Not unique enough. As noted by the proposer, it can be confused with PySCeS and PySci, two unrelated Python projects. Also has a negative connotation if pronounced like “pisces” (suggesting that this is a either fishy, suspect thingy or parodied as just “pieces”).

2.8. SciER. Not unique. Conflicts with “SCIER - A technological simulation platform to managing natural resources”. May also conflict with http://www.scier.eu/. May also connote medical science applications.

2.9. SciMatPy. Not unique enough. Numerous conflicts with “SciMat”.

2.10. SciGnosis. Not unique. Numerous conflicts, including the “SCI GNOSIS” company in Fance.

2.11. PyGnosis. Not unique enough. Conflicts with “Psygnosis Games”. Unfortunate parody to “pig nose”.

2.12. Sciome. Not unique. Conflicts with the “SCIOME - Enabling Science via Analytical Informatics” company. Negative connotation and derisive parody if pronounced “Sigh!! Oh me!!!”

2.13. ScioSphere. Not unique. Numerous conflicts with existing usages.

2.14. SciPac. Not unique. Conflicts with the “SCIPAC” chemical reagent company.

2.15. SciPyPlus. I’d evaluate its criteria as follows:

2.15.1. It’s unique and not likely to be confused with or conflict with other (possibly trademarked) names.

2.15.2. It’s short, and rather easily pronounced.

2.15.3. It’s attractive. Does draw attention. Does stimulate interest. Has the advantage of levering off SciPy’s current name and reputation.

2.15.4. It’s informative – obviously it refers to something more/better/newer/larger than SciPy alone.

2.15.5. It does have a positive connotation – more is better!

2.16. Scipy-base. Not unique enough. Conflicts with existing numpy/base and scipy/base module names.

2.17. SciPyLab. Not unique enough. Too easily confused with “SciLab”, an “open source, cross-platform numerical computational package and a high-level, numerically oriented programming language.” Not as easily pronounced as SciPyPlus.

2.18. SkeiPy. Non-informative. What this refers to is not obvious at first glance. Possible parody as “sky-pie, pie-in-the=sky.” Possible confusion with “Skype,” especially in oral communication.

2.19. UniPy. Not unique enough; too easily confused with various “UniPay” financial payment services. Not informative; literally means “one Py”,  whatever that might be.

3. The best out of this list seems to be SciPyPlus, firmly based on the criteria used.

4. Are there better names, and how do they compare to SciPyPlus’s rating on the same criteria/desiderata?