From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Package "luwak" Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 22:21:49 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87k02ws0pd.fsf@posteo.net> <87h6xxacuw.fsf@posteo.net> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35023"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: philipk@posteo.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Alfred M. Szmidt" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 18 04:22:48 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1p6kGF-0008r6-32 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2022 04:22:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6kFM-0007y3-Ct; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 22:21:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6kFL-0007xr-9l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 22:21:51 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6kFK-0006xU-3m; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 22:21:50 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=Date:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From: mime-version; bh=jjClGUHlHyka+KaRGcoEXkoIdmOaVnD/26wy8MQKe+o=; b=Lcy/+TSrptpj BrLVMyzev+AWGSmkb+TzKmGXF+e0THEAaMnHFe0sqyqHb7MPo4PpSbPNoHvie4P4Q1yHrv5ITvtGN fev/o2+XYcPYpwH5Wb6Y0JQZI+msxmK30569E1K7EHr8ETwcPp3/Q9hEF941y6pHn073qAK8nFH0q TY6RHiSU5NnZS0Dy913yfjr8lz1a1j0uniTNSP/5SgzsYOK6hO5uMGvXXJLlw2i2zChncmN5qP5RZ 9LBFDXLQYu4xo9BNaIXASTg0kEhUvytg3SWS9wOjOsklIGXpGuWWw82Nw3ITMpAHzs5DfNJz2W+PK MakLAAs7eAjCwRaptvyPcg==; Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1p6kFJ-0006ot-ES; Sat, 17 Dec 2022 22:21:49 -0500 In-Reply-To: (ams@gnu.org) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:301596 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > The main issue that I think Richard wants to tackle is > discoverability. The two goals I am concerned about are (1) discoverability and (2) understandability. "Luwak" is bad on both of those dimensions. Even if you read about the package 6 months ago, you are likely not to recall what it does, because the name does nothing to help you recall. So while luwak as a name is is meaningless, doesn't > mean that it in itself is a bad name -- it is unique, and easy to > remeber. In my view, meaningless names are bad names. Mere uniqueness is not enough to make up for the lack of discoverability and understandability. There can be unusual cases where a unique, meaningless name might suffice: for a feature that is so important and so often used that everyone will encounter the feature every week, perhaps we can expect all users to learn and remember what it does. In those cases, perhaps it won't matter than the name is meaningless. But such cases are unusual. > Instead of trying to find "perfect" names By saying "perfect", that sentence criticizes bvy exaggeration. I am not calling for "perfect" names. What I said is nothing like that. I am calling for an effort to look for a name that is at lesst somewhat helpful -- rather than adopting a totally unhelpful name that has no reasons to prefer it. wouldn't it make more sense to have another > field, or extend the Keywords field? That might be a good idea; how about posting a proposal in a different thread with a different subject line. But that wouldn't eliminate the benefit of a name that is meaningful and helpful. -- Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org) Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)