DHH vs. WHY style

Ruby
21

Trans wrote:

Syck, etc. Now, I realize that different circumstances have certainly
or-less, to these Whyish vs. DHHish possibilities:
to decide what direction to take for future development. It’s most
significant impact, I suppose, is to the require namespaces (‘facets/
aop/’ vs. ‘tapestry/’ for example). The only other solid difference I
have found between them is that some libs don’t mesh well with the DHH
style so those need to be completely separate anyway (for instance, my
modified redistribution of HTTPAccess2).

Thanks for any insights,
T.

What about putting your colorful names inside of generic namespaces?

aop/tapestry
cli/comrade
file/fileside
text/annote (?)

This scheme retains distinctiveness, but also communicates the general
purpose of a library: when we see “require ‘cli/comrade’” at least we
know it has something to do with command line processing, and not
proletarian uprising. Or, if you really want the facets brand:
“cli/comrade-facet”.

But these longer names hardly roll of the tongue…

22

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, James B. wrote:

My main concern with purely descriptive names are that they may not pass the
Google test. That is, if someone mentions it in a post and I want to learn
more, a reasonable search (e.g., ruby+code-name on Google) should bring it up
in the top 10.

I’m not advocating the use of stereotypical Web 2.0 -style names, but they
need not be dry and lifeless.

The thing here is that he already does have a recognizeable brand with
facets, and ‘ruby facets’ is the first thing to come up on a google
search. So, Facets/BASE will certainly do just fine on the Google test,
and it preserves an already well known brand name.

Kirk H.

23

On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:18:30AM +0900, James B. wrote:

I stand with you! Raise the black flag!
H.L. Mencken once said: “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” I
just thought I’d share. It’s one of my favorite quotes.

My main concern with purely descriptive names are that they may not pass
the Google test. That is, if someone mentions it in a post and I want
to learn more, a reasonable search (e.g., ruby+code-name on Google)
should bring it up in the top 10.

Thus, combine the two. Instead of Facets/File_reverse or Elif, you
might consider using Facets/Elif. Voila. Brand recognition, fun, and
brand recognition, all rolled up in one convenient package.

24

Joel VanderWerf wrote:

What about putting your colorful names inside of generic namespaces?
aop/tapestry
cli/comrade
file/fileside
text/annote (?)

+1. In fact I have a whole taxonomy of infrastructure
terms I’ve used, and being able to locate a “body of
work” is much easier if such a taxonomy is used.

25

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:26:54PM +0900, James Edward G. II wrote:

I also don’t think whimsical names have to be unhelpful. When I
ported File::ReadBackwards from Perl, I named my version Elif. I
guess you have to “get that” before it helps, but I had to know what
Facets was to even make guesses about the more helpful names. Seems
pretty comparable to me.

Unhelpful names are the prevailing trend, though. It’s true about
software and it’s true about many automobile manufacturers. Some do it
because inventing names is fun, and some do it because less generic
names are better for marketing. I’m convinced, though, that there is a
group out there of nonzero size that comes up with these names just to
make life difficult for me.

Paul

26

Trans wrote:

+1. In fact I have a whole taxonomy of infrastructure
terms I’ve used, and being able to locate a “body of
work” is much easier if such a taxonomy is used.

I like the taxonomy too, but this naming scheme for requires is not
really ideal.

Agree. The taxonomy idea is for locating a relevant
term, but because it places each term at exactly
one place in the hierarchy, it’s not necessary to
use the whole hierarchy in names. So for example,
under my category “network/binding” there is a term
“DNS”, which is the network binding for the domain
name system. If Ruby were to have an integrated and
definitive DNS API, it could reasonably be called
module DNS, rather than Network::Binding::DNS.

A definitive extension that adds support for DNS
service requests should be called DNS::Service.
The important point is that the library must (aspire
to) completely cover the conceptual space allocated
by that area of the taxonomy. If it doesn’t, then
give it a wacky name under the place of best fit.

So if someone then came along and made a nice library
for doing something special like using DNS Service
requests to locate Windows domain controllers, it
would get called DNS::ColorfulName, and required as
“colorfulname”. So the taxonomy exists really only
for the “accepted standard” way of doing things,
and as assistance in locating non-standard things.

I’ve also used what I call “facet naming”. For example,
NT is a category under Operating Systems, and Kerberos
is a category under Security, so when I had a module
that did something with Kerberos, but was limited to
NT, the module got a parenthesized qualification added
to its name: “Security/Kerberos (NT)”. The parenthetical
qualification identifies this as being top-level Kerberos
functionality, but pertaining only to NT. In this case
a Ruby module name would be Kerberos::NT, and the require
would be “kerberos/nt”. The re-use of a term “NT” that’s
defined elsewhere in the taxonomy identifies this as a
facet name, rather than a sub-category.

Using facet naming, every object “belongs to” one area
(Kerberos here) but potentially “pertains to” another
one (NT). This allows full aspect-oriented naming of
cross-cutting concerns.

Anyhow, I don’t know whether any of these concepts have
value for the current problem, but I thought that with
your penchant for AOP and the fact that the current
subject is your Facets library, you’d be interested :-).

…it clarifies the
difficulty of what I am attempting b/c it means 1) I have to figure
out how to organize and name the redistributable subsections of this
large repository and 2) figure out how that should effect the require
namespaces.

Can I ask that you clearly identify and perhaps separate
items from Facets that have a strong potential to interact
and break other frameworks? I really like most of Facets,
but sometimes I just can’t bear the risk of partly-hidden
strangeness.

Clifford H…

27

On Apr 28, 4:10 am, Clifford H. [email protected] wrote:

A definitive extension that adds support for DNS
“colorfulname”. So the taxonomy exists really only
functionality, but pertaining only to NT. In this case
a Ruby module name would be Kerberos::NT, and the require
would be “kerberos/nt”. The re-use of a term “NT” that’s
defined elsewhere in the taxonomy identifies this as a
facet name, rather than a sub-category.

Using facet naming, every object “belongs to” one area
(Kerberos here) but potentially “pertains to” another
one (NT). This allows full aspect-oriented naming of
cross-cutting concerns.

You remind me that I didn’t address module namespace in my last post –
further complicating the matter.

Anyhow, I don’t know whether any of these concepts have
value for the current problem, but I thought that with
your penchant for AOP and the fact that the current
subject is your Facets library, you’d be interested :-).

Funny how concerns can overlap even in orthogonal ways :wink:

strangeness.
Actually, I’ve already done this very thing. “Facets 2.0” (however I
end up subdividing the parts) will be a much cleaner library. But if
you have a specific concerns in this regard please let me know so I
can make sure they have been addressed.

T.

28

On Apr 26, 8:00 pm, Clifford H. [email protected] wrote:

Joel VanderWerf wrote:

What about putting your colorful names inside of generic namespaces?
aop/tapestry
cli/comrade
file/fileside
text/annote (?)

+1. In fact I have a whole taxonomy of infrastructure
terms I’ve used, and being able to locate a “body of
work” is much easier if such a taxonomy is used.

I like the taxonomy too, but this naming scheme for requires is not
really ideal. These colorful names represent a repository or part of a
repository. In general, a package could just as well have lib files
that fall under variant categories, and I don’t think it’s a good idea
to spread them out over a number of subdirectories. So it’s better as:

tapestry/aop/…
comrade/cli/…
fileside/file/…
annote/meta/… (?)

The initial names are simply namespaces that separate these libs from
other repositories/packages. If the libs were part of the standard
library, then the initial namespace could be removed. In fact it would
not be unreasonable to use a domain name for this. For example:

require ‘facets.rubyforge.org/aop/…’

That’s really the community friendly way of doing things. Although,
since Rubyforge is by far the most common source of all libs ruby, it
is also reasonable to omit the host name (.rubyforge.org). Indeed,
registering a project with Rubyforge gives one the right to use that
toplevel require space. Unfortunately there’s a bit of an unspoken
schism in the community (which I mentioned in an older post) as to
whether it is actually the first use of a gem name that gives one a
right to a toplevel namespace instead. None of this is enforced of
course, but it’s basically the unspoken standard. And it clarifies the
difficulty of what I am attempting b/c it means 1) I have to figure
out how to organize and name the redistributable subsections of this
large repository and 2) figure out how that should effect the require
namespaces. Since there is no general consensus on this I am left
figuring out what to call and how to tie together the repository name,
the package names and taxonomy to achieve this.

BTW, I’m really impressed with the responses thus far; lots of great
insights from all of you. Thanks guys!

T.

29

On 4/26/07, Ari B. [email protected] wrote:

Don’t pick a weird name like Amerthrall (I just made that up). A good
bet is always something simple. For instance, CitiBank doesn’t
really generate conversations like OOTS generates laughs, but it
sticks with people and is easy to remember.

Unlike, say, Google? The opposing view doesn’t seem to have hurt the
popularity of Hpricot, Mongrel, Hoe, or, heck, even “Rails” itself, and
they’re some of the biggest Ruby related projects out there :wink:

That said, I must admit I partly agree with you when it comes down to
tools,
rather than brand names. Rails is certainly a brand, and has almost
certainly been intended to be one from very early on. Same for Hpricot
and
Mongrel, I’d say. Some small library with a niche function though…? I’d
say
your advice would be right for that.

Cheers,
Peter C.

30

On Apr 29, 12:00 am, Sammy L. [email protected] wrote:

I’m not sure that name came from nowhere…

certainly been intended to be one from very early on. Same for Hpricot

After reading this one, I’m still no closer to knowing if we are talking
about products or code. =) But I’m leaning ever closer to knowing I
just don’t know. =)

Well, at heart, we’re dealing will about 100 or so libraries (ie.
files). The vast majority of which can stand on there own. I’d have to
be crazy to give each and every one a colorful name, but some of them
do admit of clear relationships, like the libs pertaining to CLI and
AOP. Presently Facets is one monolithic library collection. That’s
good for brand recognition around “Facets”, but it also seems to hurt
uptake b/c programmers tend to look for more focused solutions.

Per the original query. I could subdivide the libs into taxonomic
categories, eg. cliFacets, aopFacets, and what have you. That would
help, but I worry it would still not be enough to spur this focused
uptake. And I also wonder if it would still stifle development since
they remain part a larger collective.

T.

31

Peter C. wrote:

On 4/26/07, Ari B. [email protected] wrote:

Don’t pick a weird name like Amerthrall (I just made that up). A good
bet is always something simple. For instance, CitiBank doesn’t
really generate conversations like OOTS generates laughs, but it
sticks with people and is easy to remember.

Unlike, say, Google?
I’m not sure that name came from nowhere…
(Googol - Wikipedia) Of course, I assume most probably
knew that…

I’d say
your advice would be right for that.

I was never sure if this thread was talking about naming
classes/packages or a product. In my view, you should name products
distinctly, and its quite ok to give them cute names. But giving
code-related things names that are nonsensical /is/ nonsensical. It may
seem cute, but its often quite useless.

After reading this one, I’m still no closer to knowing if we are talking
about products or code. =) But I’m leaning ever closer to knowing I
just don’t know. =)

Sam

32

On Apr 30, 10:02 am, Sammy L. [email protected] wrote:

That said, I must admit I partly agree with you when it comes down to
distinctly, and its quite ok to give them cute names. But giving
files). The vast majority of which can stand on there own.

What is preventing you from making them stand on their own?

For starters, maintaining 100+ packages would be a severe pain –
though I did seriously considered it. But really it gets too granular
at that point. We’re talking about a lot of small generally useful
(albiet not necessarily commonly useful) libs.

I’d have to
be crazy to give each and every one a colorful name, but some of them
do admit of clear relationships, like the libs pertaining to CLI and
AOP.

So, now you are looking to group them into more cohesive chunks?

Yes.

Presently Facets is one monolithic library collection. That’s
good for brand recognition around “Facets”, but it also seems to hurt
uptake b/c programmers tend to look for more focused solutions.

What about Facets as a brand, but not necessarily in the code
packaging? That way, unrelated things are not seemingly related
in creating variables, requiring files, and such. Then say “company”
Facets releases different, helpful packages. (or whatever level of
granularity you like)

Yea, I’ve been considering that option. It’s a hard choice b/c many
people (including myself) tend to associate the extension methods
library with Facets --but that’s just one part, albeit the core part.
So subdividing it in a _why-like way, I’m inclined to name the core
extensions package Facets. But that leaves me wondering if it makes
sense to also call the “company brand” (as you put it) Facets.

require ‘some_facets_file’

some_var = Ace.new
another_two = Jacks.new(2)
fourth_and_fifth = Kings(2)

Then, I don’t know whether I’ve just been dealt Two-Pair with an Ace
kicker, where the next line should be “raise 250”, or if something more
useful is happening.

Sorry you lost me here. But that’s a good hand :wink:

T.

33

Trans wrote, On 4/30/2007 8:42 AM:

and
After reading this one, I’m still no closer to knowing if we are talking
about products or code. =) But I’m leaning ever closer to knowing I
just don’t know. =)

Thanks for the clarification. I have some more comments/questions below.

Well, at heart, we’re dealing will about 100 or so libraries (ie.
files). The vast majority of which can stand on there own.

What is preventing you from making them stand on their own?

I’d have to
be crazy to give each and every one a colorful name, but some of them
do admit of clear relationships, like the libs pertaining to CLI and
AOP.

So, now you are looking to group them into more cohesive chunks?

Presently Facets is one monolithic library collection. That’s
good for brand recognition around “Facets”, but it also seems to hurt
uptake b/c programmers tend to look for more focused solutions.

What about Facets as a brand, but not necessarily in the code
packaging? That way, unrelated things are not seemingly related
in creating variables, requiring files, and such. Then say “company”
Facets releases different, helpful packages. (or whatever level of
granularity you like)

Per the original query. I could subdivide the libs into taxonomic
categories, eg. cliFacets, aopFacets, and what have you. That would
help, but I worry it would still not be enough to spur this focused
uptake. And I also wonder if it would still stifle development since
they remain part a larger collective.

I’m sure you have covered all these, but my memory fails me sometimes
and I thought I’d bring them up. The part that “concerned” me was that
I was thinking you (and/or others, in the general case) were talking
about doing something like this in the code:

require ‘some_facets_file’

some_var = Ace.new
another_two = Jacks.new(2)
fourth_and_fifth = Kings(2)

Then, I don’t know whether I’ve just been dealt Two-Pair with an Ace
kicker, where the next line should be “raise 250”, or if something more
useful is happening.

Sam

34

Trans wrote, On 4/30/2007 10:41 AM:

fourth_and_fifth = Kings(2)

Then, I don’t know whether I’ve just been dealt Two-Pair with an Ace
kicker, where the next line should be “raise 250”, or if something more
useful is happening.

Sorry you lost me here. But that’s a good hand :wink:

T.

Oh, I was referring back to my original question of what the thread was
talking about. I remembered there was a playing card reference
somewhere, and it “concerned” me if you were talking about naming the
classes after cards, then reading the code I might not know what was
going on. That’s all. (aside from my typos in the example)

Thanks again for helping me understand what was going on. I appreciate
it.

Sam

35

On 30/04/07, Sammy L. [email protected] wrote:

another_two = Jacks.new(2)

Oh, I was referring back to my original question of what the thread was
talking about. I remembered there was a playing card reference
somewhere, and it “concerned” me if you were talking about naming the
classes after cards, then reading the code I might not know what was
going on. That’s all. (aside from my typos in the example)

Also I would not want to search for a library named Aces. Nor I would
try as I usually search for solution to a particular problem, and Aces
does not sound like anything I was ever solving.

Although more capable search engines would also pick keywords from
description, I am not sure about the current situation on Rubyforge
and elsewhere.

But I am pretty sure Facets never fell out of the search engines for
me. Maybe they are for stuff that I do not use. I don’t know.

Thanks

Michal