It's impossible to look at naming objectively, and now hindsight and habit make it doubly impossible - how could "Macintosh" have a different name than "Macintosh"? That's crazy talk!
But here's my hypothesis for why "Bicycle" is a terrible name, which it is: can you name another successful, novel consumer product that was introduced with the same name as a large existing general category of popular consumer products?
It seems both pretentious and confusing to call a project "Bicycle". "Did you take your bicycle to work today?" "Um, no, I drove." "But doesn't your bicycle work more efficiently?" "No, this new Rollerskate gets twice the battery life." "Third base!"
Of course, the excuse was that it was "only a code name". To which a good response is that lousy code names are like Lorem Ipsum text: They screw up your design by encouraging you to ignore things which are actually important, like the thematic unity of your work or the need to convey a specific actual meaning with the words you are typesetting.
2 comments
[ 126 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadBut here's my hypothesis for why "Bicycle" is a terrible name, which it is: can you name another successful, novel consumer product that was introduced with the same name as a large existing general category of popular consumer products?
It seems both pretentious and confusing to call a project "Bicycle". "Did you take your bicycle to work today?" "Um, no, I drove." "But doesn't your bicycle work more efficiently?" "No, this new Rollerskate gets twice the battery life." "Third base!"
Of course, the excuse was that it was "only a code name". To which a good response is that lousy code names are like Lorem Ipsum text: They screw up your design by encouraging you to ignore things which are actually important, like the thematic unity of your work or the need to convey a specific actual meaning with the words you are typesetting.
"I just upgraded my Windows!" "Oh nice, switched to three-pane? How much did you save in heating costs?"