[stringtemplate-interest] package name

[Joseph Grace]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>http://lwn.net/Articles/351422/
>Just read last month, when Ken Thomson was asked what he'd do
>differently about Unix IO api, he would have spelt creat as "create".

I believe that "creat" vs. "create" and "ST" vs. "StringTemplate" are
fundamentally different and even opposing use cases.

"creat" is only 1 letter shorter than "create".
"ST" is a 12 letters more convenient than the hefty "StringTemplate".

"creat" sees infrequent use, suggesting the name should be explicit (as long
as necessary), specific, and self-documenting, and not clutter up the
abbreviated namespace.
"ST" is essential to use StringTemplate, so it sees frequent use and should
be as short as reasonable to declutter the code.  It deserves an
abbreviation.

"create" says what it means.
StringTemplate is made up and only has special meaning.  So "ST" is a made
up word with very specific meaning, StringTemplate.  It's short, so it
implies it deserves heavy use (see point 3, above) and has the benefit of
fairly unique spelling (capitalization sensitivity on for searching) as it
doesn't exist in the wild (unlike "Template" which may exist in code, or
even in English text).

So, I would say that while "creat" well deserves an "e", "ST" does not
necessarily deserve a "ringemplate".  I would say these are two different
use cases, and the same principles actually suggest opposite treatments:
 longer for uncommon "creat" -> "create", and shorter for ubiquitous
"StringTemplate" -> "ST".

Bottom Line

Short implies heavy use, a gateway to a useful, frequently used library.
 That's what ST should be for its use cases, and the long name negates some
of its convenience.  And because of its hefty typing load, IMO,
"StringTemplate" sends the wrong message to potential users of the
StringTemplate.

IMO:  "ST" >> "StringTemplate".

= Joe =
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/stringtemplate-interest/attachments/20091017/cdbcb779/attachment.html