I like the point on accepting awkward names a lot. It comes close to the “system should be a complex as they need to” (some quote I am completely butchering) i

I like the point on accepting awkward names a lot. It comes close to the “system should be a complex as they need to” (some quote I am completely butchering) idea. There’s a point where trying to hide messiness isn’t helpful. As a side point to the “plus” argument, I think having a name that covers 99% of the use cases but will fail unpredictively on edge cases should be fine for something that is central to the library. People for whom exact behavior matters will have looked at the doc or tried these use cases by themselves, or there will be enough blog posts like this one to motivate them into checking what their lib does beforehand. Well, anyone working with times and dates will have learned to not trust clean abstractions at this point. For people who are just writing convenience applications and want a lib that make them feel they can use it without hassle, “plus” is a very good, memorable and easy to use name.