Haven't read that much about Matz' motivations, but I agree with him,
generally. If you're writing a quick adapter library that binds to
something in C or C++, then sure, put "Ruby" in the name. But other
than that having "Ruby" in the name sounds a bit like an inferiority
complex: "Our language has all the stuff that your other language has!
See, for your Foobar library, we've got a Ruby-Foobar library!"

A language like this should be encouraging us to think of approaches
that are impossible in other languages; our names should follow
accordingly.

F.

"SER" <ser / germane-software.com> wrote in message news:<c8thil$tri / odak26.prod.google.com>...
> Interesting topic.
> 
> What about projects that will also appear in Freshmeat?  Should each
> project have two different names -- one for RAA and one for Freshmeat?
> Exactly how is this is going to be less confusing?
> 
> That said, Matz has expressed a dislike of names that have "Ruby" in
> them, or even "R", if the "R" stands for Ruby.
> 
> There's a group of people who believe that projects should be entirely
> non-descriptive.  Personally, I'm going to start randomly generating
> names for my projects; that'll make browsing the RAA *really* fun.
> --- SER