[stringtemplate-interest] package name

[Jonathan Buhacoff]

Maybe a better parallel is that people who write a lot of I/O code in  
Java are constantly writing InputStream, FileInputStream, etc. Java  
has been around longer, and after 6 major versions of the Java  
language, these common and useful classes have not been abbreviated to  
IS or FIS.

I suppose if Terrence chooses ST and I really want to hear myself type  
StringTemplate more often, I could write class StringTemplate extends  
ST and use the full name :)

On Oct 17, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Joseph Grace wrote:

> 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 =
>
> _______________________________________________
> stringtemplate-interest mailing list
> stringtemplate-interest at antlr.org
> http://www.antlr.org/mailman/listinfo/stringtemplate-interest

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.antlr.org/pipermail/stringtemplate-interest/attachments/20091017/a7387e16/attachment.html