3 ms·
I like it. It's memorable, and for me it does evoke "doesn't die". I'd even argue that, out of all the DBs, the name is one of the things that made it successfu
by gkoberger 6y ago
I like it. It's memorable, and for me it does evoke "doesn't die". I'd even argue that, out of all the DBs, the name is one of the things that made it successful... even if you don't like it, you're gonna remember it.
- asdas1231231 6y agoYep. The data will be allowed to become inconsistent garbage but the DB engine will still be running in a 100% CPU utilisation loop - just like a headless cockroach running in circles on the floor.
- dimitrios1 6y agoThe best part about a name like CockroachDB is it keeps all the people away who would complain about a database being named CockroachDB, who would most likely be your lowest value, highest complaining customers.
- reikonomusha 6y agoI don’t think this is true. It feels like the same kind of argument as “one who cares about their suitor’s appearance must not care about the stuff that really matters, their personality.” It’s not true and it’s a false dichotomy. Software projects that use databases often have lots of people working on it, reporting to people who don’t work on it. While I personally believe it’s easy enough to bury “CockroachDB” from sight, it may not be so easy everywhere. Lots of people, techies and not, care about aesthetics and appeal. It’s not rational (in any technological sense), but it is what it is.
- dimitrios1 6y agoI am not presenting a dichotomy. I am not saying you must either care about aesthetics and appeal or function and form. I am saying a good technologist can look past aesthetics or appeal, which are superficial characteristics in my opinion, and judge a technology based on its technical merits and the problems it is capable of solving.