[PREV - TECHNOIDAL_RIFFS] [TOP]
DISTINCT_NAMING
May 5, 2021
On a typical linux box in the /usr/lib
directory, you'll find many C libraries
named things like:
libgimp-2.0.so.0.800.18
It's lib, lib, lib everywhere in the lib directory,
and you might wonder what's with this redundant
naming convention?
I think the answer has nothing much to do with the
use of the file on the system, and everything to do
with what you call it in conversation.
There's an image editor named gimp, and it uses a
C-library, and if it was called just gimp, you
couldn't say things like "There's a problem with
gimp, and we traced it back to libgimp."
"Simplifying" the name on the system would force
you to go through verbal contortions when trying
to talk about.
There's a perl library that used to be popular
for doing CGI, and it was called CGI.pm, which
meant you needed to keep saying "dot pee em"
to make it clear when you meant the library
and not the thing it's meant to do.
I was working somewhere where perl libraries
were all named things like PageLib.pm instead
of just something like Page.pm, and I had to
have it pointed out to me that that redundant
"Lib" naming convention actually made the
libraries "semantically distinct". This
practice actually made a lot of sense, even
though the ".pm" and the file location
already would make it clear it's a library.
Naming something with obvious cues
about what it is has some advantages,
even if it seems like they're Unfortunately, transparent naming
redundent from some point of view. like this is difficult in the
modern world with it's globalized
Why call it "Yo-Yo Magazine" name-space.
and not just "Yo-Yo"?
Without looking, you *know*
Answer: So they'll *know* someone is sitting on the domain
you mean the magazine. for yoyo.com, and it's even
likely they've got yoyomagazine
and yoyomag sewn up.
--------
[NEXT - BAD_AND_TRUE]