On Jul 11, 2007, at 5:59 PM, MenTaLguY wrote:
If we can either end this thread, take it offlist somewhere, or
convert
it back into a thread about the need to consider cultural factors when
selecting package names, that’d be great though.
If a farmer starts complaining that the Hoe library implies we are
all backwater hicks, will we need to take that down?
James Edward G. II
On 7/11/07, Todd B. [email protected] wrote:
It isn’t the most terrible idea either. Over-restraint in a forum is
an exercise that, though means well, irritates me to no end. A
modicum of [OT]s is healthy for any forum, I think.
Agreed. I am a member of a couple of lists wherein the “wasted”
bandwidth discussing the evils of being OT is about 5 to 10 * the
actual waste of the off topic posts. A similar ratio applies to
discussions on the evils of spam.
Bob
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 07:59:13AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
“God” (a proper name) and “god” (an ordinary noun) are distinct terms in
English: the former refers to the Ultimate Being; only the latter is the
generic term for deity.Take note of the fact that the particular piece of software we’re
discussing was announced as “god”, not “God”.To be honest, I was more concerned with addressing the notion that the
idea of God was some sinister monotheist invention, which stems from
popular (but jaundiced) modern ideas about both Christianity and pagan
religions.
I don’t see anything sinister about monotheism, polytheism, atheism, or
ferrotheism, or for that matter about any use of “god”, “God”, “gods”,
$DEITY, or whatever else you like. In that respect, then, I don’t think
we’re disagreeing about anything in particular.
If we can either end this thread, take it offlist somewhere, or convert
it back into a thread about the need to consider cultural factors when
selecting package names, that’d be great though.
Okay. My thought, repeated: I would have more likely called it Deus,
both to avoid unnecessary potential for offense and to make it sound
smarter (everything sounds smarter in Latin, it seems). The fact it was
called “god” instead, however, is no skin off my nose. If it was thusly
named with full cognizance of the potential cultural response to it, so
be it. If not, I think someone could stand to think a little more about
cultural associations when naming things in the future.
. . . and that really seems to be all there is to it, for me.
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:58:15 +0900, James Edward G. II
[email protected] wrote:
If a farmer starts complaining that the Hoe library implies we are
all backwater hicks, will we need to take that down?
While I don’t personally know as many farmers as some people, I have
to ask: is that a realistic example?
In the case of any unforseen conflict, it’s always going to be a
matter of prudence what actions a maintainer should or should not
take. While the particular complaint above seems a bit silly, if
the maintainer really felt the need to make a change in response to
it, renaming the package seems a more reasonable course of action
than pulling it entire.
Really, though, I think it’s better to consider this in positive
terms: what are some best practices when coming up with a project
name?
Also, what are some particularly successful names which play on
cultural factors in positive ways? How do they work?
-mental
On Jul 11, 2007, at 8:01 PM, MenTaLguY wrote:
Really, though, I think it’s better to consider this in positive
terms: what are some best practices when coming up with a project
name?Also, what are some particularly successful names which play on
cultural factors in positive ways? How do they work?
I agree and do believe we should be having those discussions. That’s
just not the angle we’ve been taking, in my opinion.
James Edward G. II
Haven’t been around lately, and just saw this one. I was inspired!
Then I tried…
gem install God
But I got an error:
Bulk updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.org
ERROR: While executing gem … (Gem::GemNotFoundException)
God does not exist in any repository
It’s probably my environment, since I have DEVOUT_ATHIEST set to true
(I blame the NoneGodInstaller!)
Flame away, it doesn’t matter to me. We’re more alike than you think.
I just believe in one god less than you (ok, or more for you
polytheists).
btw, rumor has it this library isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, so
I’ll live without it.
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807/
You’re the first atheist I meet that could ever proove that God doesn’t
exist ^^
On 7/12/07, Michel B. [email protected] wrote:
You’re the first atheist I meet that could ever proove that God doesn’t
exist ^^
You got it all wrong, arrrg does anybody respect my believes here 
The existence of a superior being shall not interfere with my code of
conduct on this low existence. I can – and actually I do – think
about such a potential existence all I want.
That is my definition of a practical atheist.
R.
On 7/12/07, James Edward G. II [email protected] wrote:
James Edward G. II
James what about a Ruby Q.?
Write a Ruby program that creates readable Package names that will not
have any meaning in any ancient, modern or future language of the
planet.
Bonus: Implement it for all languages in the Universe.
Robert
Robert Parker wrote:
On 7/11/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:
That’s the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
many folks in the thread assumed “God == Christianity” and that is
extremely offensive to me.Agreed, but “God == Islam” or “God == Judaism” is equally loathsome.
They’re all nonsense, in fact. You might as well say “Computer ==
Linux”.
John W. Kennedy wrote:
Robert Parker wrote:
On 7/11/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:
That’s the reasonable argument against the name. My concern is that
many folks in the thread assumed “God == Christianity” and that is
extremely offensive to me.Agreed, but “God == Islam” or “God == Judaism” is equally loathsome.
They’re all nonsense, in fact. You might as well say “Computer ==
Linux”.
I’m not seeing your anology. Islams have a God. Judaism has a God.
Sunnis and Shiites (srry if i misspelled that) have a God. Computers
could or could not have the operating system Linux, they could have
Windows. They might even run of Mac OS. But all those religions have one
or more Gods. Except Aethiests. They belive in Science.
On 7/12/07, Joe W. [email protected] wrote:
They’re all nonsense, in fact. You might as well say “Computer ==
Linux”.I’m not seeing your anology. Islams have a God. Judaism has a God.
Sunnis and Shiites (srry if i misspelled that) have a God. Computers
could or could not have the operating system Linux, they could have
Windows. They might even run of Mac OS. But all those religions have one
or more Gods. Except Aethiests. They belive in Science.
We’re really spinning off on a tangent here, well a tangent of a
tangent of a tangent. If nothing else, perhaps Robert thought I was
making a “Christian specific” comment, but it really wasn’t, it was
about the assumptions in this thread alone that equated God with
christianity that rubbed me the wrong way.
This is pretty insane how far away from any original point there was,
so maybe we can let the thread die by now?
On 7/12/07, Joe W. [email protected] wrote:
If someone named a program “God”, and people don’t like people
complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
the word Satan? Im sure the first set of people would not like that, and
the first people would become the second, and vice-versa.
For me, it’s not about taking offense. It’s about absconding with a
‘heavy’ name for their library. I’m sure people would not like it
that much if I came up with a library and named it bluntly ‘ftp’ or
‘telnet’ or ‘ruby’ or ‘rubyquiz’.
Todd
Gregory B. wrote:
On 7/12/07, Joe W. [email protected] wrote:
They’re all nonsense, in fact. You might as well say “Computer ==
Linux”.I’m not seeing your anology. Islams have a God. Judaism has a God.
Sunnis and Shiites (srry if i misspelled that) have a God. Computers
could or could not have the operating system Linux, they could have
Windows. They might even run of Mac OS. But all those religions have one
or more Gods. Except Aethiests. They belive in Science.We’re really spinning off on a tangent here, well a tangent of a
tangent of a tangent. If nothing else, perhaps Robert thought I was
making a “Christian specific” comment, but it really wasn’t, it was
about the assumptions in this thread alone that equated God with
christianity that rubbed me the wrong way.This is pretty insane how far away from any original point there was,
so maybe we can let the thread die by now?
Good idea. So many threads and comment sections of AOL and MSN stories
have turned to religion. I’v seen frozen baby mammoth comments turn into
hellish (that might imply religion to some people. Sorry. I use it in
the meaning " Chaotic and Hateful".) religion comment wars. It’s best if
everyone just lets the discussion die, and then talk about the technical
aspect, or the well preserved dead baby mammoth. And with the dead baby
mammoth, people went on and on about people cloning it, when the story
said specificly that the cells had burst, and they couldn’t clone it.
Some people can’t read.
The world is filled with three kinds of people. Those who can count, and
those who can’t. 9/8 of the world’s population has trouble with
fractions.
Todd B. wrote:
On 7/12/07, Joe W. [email protected] wrote:
If someone named a program “God”, and people don’t like people
complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
the word Satan? Im sure the first set of people would not like that, and
the first people would become the second, and vice-versa.For me, it’s not about taking offense. It’s about absconding with a
‘heavy’ name for their library. I’m sure people would not like it
that much if I came up with a library and named it bluntly ‘ftp’ or
‘telnet’ or ‘ruby’ or ‘rubyquiz’.Todd
I’m sorry if I don’t exactly know what these library things are, or ftp
or telnet. But I don’t see why people wouldn’t like it. Besides the
people who made these things and may have copyrighted them. And it would
confuse people if they searched for said thing and found your ‘library’
instead. But smart people get over it, and smart people don’t make other
smart people have to get over things dumb people do.
Trans wrote:
On the topic, I don’t see it as a religious thing in-itself, merely a
matter of general sensibilities. For instance, I would likewise anyone
not to name a project a curse word or racial slur, despite how well
they might correspond to the projects functionality. Sure, “God” is
not a “bad” word, but it’s just as emotionally heavy. In the end, you
could use any such name, if you really wanted, but you’d probably be
doing yourself a disservice b/c some people simply won’t approach your
project b/c of it.T.
If someone named a program “God”, and people don’t like people
complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
the word Satan? Im sure the first set of people would not like that, and
the first people would become the second, and vice-versa.
On 7/12/07, Joe W. [email protected] wrote:
If someone named a program “God”, and people don’t like people
complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
the word Satan?
Sigh. How soon they forget 
On 7/10/07, Enrique Comba R. [email protected] wrote:
Jeezzz…
Guys, get a grip!
If the name he chose for the library is god, so be it.
Hear, hear! That sums up the whole issue at a logical level.
Whatever next? People complaining about the word “daemon” being satanic,
“slave” drives being unfairly domineered, and pro-lifers against
“aborting”
processes?
Cheers,
Peter C.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:17:30AM +0900, Joe W. wrote:
T.
If someone named a program “God”, and people don’t like people
complaining about the use of the word, what if someone named a program
the word Satan? Im sure the first set of people would not like that, and
the first people would become the second, and vice-versa.
You mean like this?
SATAN
Peter C. wrote:
On 7/10/07, Enrique Comba R. [email protected] wrote:
Jeezzz…
Guys, get a grip!
If the name he chose for the library is god, so be it.
Hear, hear! That sums up the whole issue at a logical level.
Whatever next? People complaining about the word “daemon” being satanic,
“slave” drives being unfairly domineered, and pro-lifers against
“aborting”
processes?Cheers,
Peter C.
http://www.rubyinside.com/
If your definition of daemon matches mine of Demon, then I think that
demon is far from satanic. It’s origins maybe be from biblical history,
but people now-a-days use the terms “demon” and “demonic” just to mean
evil. And they use them alot in video games. But they never end up
getting sued, or making them change their monsters names, etc. So I
think your anolgies are just plain stupid. As for aborting proccesses,
abort has multiple meanings. and why would you name a drive ‘slave’?
That’s just waiting to get you yelled at, or sued.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs