[stringtemplate-interest] package name

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:55:03AM -0700, 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,

In the context of programmatically generated templates.

I have a "driver" to which I feed data and template-groups-in-files.

But I do grant that programmatic ST does not appear uncommon from what I
can tell...


> 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

Well that's true. I hadn't thought of it that way. Seemed so intuitive a
name. I guess we could consider StringsAndAttributesTemplate :)

What do you think about just "Template"?


> 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).

Hmm. You're swaying me on this one.


> 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 =

Template?

-- 
Homepage: www.SoulSound.net -- Free Australia: www.UPMART.org
Please respect the confidentiality of this email as sensibly warranted.