> Interesting.  Simon (hi Simon!) is probably right that "Definitive
> [library module] names discourage wheel reinvention."  The problem,
> though, is that such an approach means that whoever writes the *first*
> module called "XML::Parser" or "Text::Soundex" (or whatever) ends up
> having written the definitive one, whether it's any good or not.

That's what popped into my mind, too.   A definitive name is great if there is
but one definitive module.

Things may have many names, and as long as there are ways to search on these
names, then there's hope. Things can have a description, too, which we might
simply consider the rest of a really long name; it may be asking too much to
require a formal module name to serve as both as unique identifier as well as a
suitable description.

I happen to like "cutesy" names if they manage to convey some reasonable aspect
of the module.  Distinctive names make it easier to search Google, for example.
(Compare searching Google for 'Perl', and then 'Python' or 'Ruby', on the
assumption that in both cases you want pages related to a programming language.)

Simon wrote, "If I'm writing C code to deal with Unicode, I'd look for a
libunicode. "

I find that odd; it presumes there would be only one such library, or that the
best/most suitable  library would have that name.  Why not look for "C Unicode
library", and see what you find?  It makes me think of the common observation
that nice, descriptive URLS are no longer important, because people either click
a link (where the descriptive text masks a difficult or unintuitive URL), or
they just use Google.  Likewise, if I want some code, I would go to the RAA and
do a search.  It won't occur to me to get a lost of module names and scan them
fro something that seemed to have the appropriate name.

That's not to say names aren't important, but that names may not be the primary
way people locate things.  If you go to RAA and search on "XML parser", sure
enough, you get a list of parsers. (Almost.  The list includes Rimport, which is
not a parser.  The list excludes libxml.  In both cases I think the descriptive
text plays a key role.)

And besides, I doesn't Perl claim There's More Than One Way To Name It?


James

See y'all (or some, anyways) in a few days!



>
>
> David
>
> --
> David Alan Black
> home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
> work: blackdav / shu.edu
> Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav
>
>
>