3 ms·

I think this is the category of comment that I've seen downvoted in the past, but it needs to be said: I wouldn't name a company "malloc". The meaning is very

I think this is the category of comment that I've seen downvoted in the past, but it needs to be said: I wouldn't name a company "malloc". The meaning is very specific, its usage well established and old, and it would seem to me this company has nothing to do with it and shouldn't claim the name.

Zababa 5y ago
I feel the same. I don't like when companies use a word that already exists.
- asveikau 5y ago
  I think a word that already exists is probably fine a lot of the time. But an unrelated technical term with a 50+ year history...
  - Zababa 5y ago
    You're right, that's a better way to put it.
jareklupinski 5y ago
yup, especially with so many warnings against using the original malloc, its an interesting choice
phendrenad2 5y ago
It seems like a super bad choice, and people will have a hard time googling for the company, because there's no way the company is going to surpass the decades of results for "malloc" the syscall name. I feel that you did a good service in warning them about this. But then again, this is what venture capital is all about. Try every permutation of things and eventually you'll hit on a unicorn idea. Maybe naming a company after the most common syscall on the most common OS on the planet is a winning strategy after all?