5 ms·

Totally agree. Haven't heard someone describe this way of naming as "codenames", which I think gives the right impression that's is a placeholder name. It als

Totally agree. Haven't heard someone describe this way of naming as "codenames", which I think gives the right impression that's is a placeholder name. It also suggests the service is a proper noun, instead using a name like "shipments" which is actually pretty confusing, since you often have to determine if you mean actual shipments or the service based on context. My experience is when we use "trivial" names folks just use abbreviations or other methods to disambiguate them anyway. For example, look at all the AWS services. Does anyone ever say "Elastic Compute Cloud" service? Come to think of it, that does seem like a fair compromise to have some formal-ish name for the service and just use a codename when referring to it.

thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Haven't heard someone describe this way of naming as "codenames", which I think gives the right impression that's is a placeholder name. "Codenames" are used for products for which the "name" is recognized as significant to the product. Thus, choosing the name is a project of its own -- and might take quite a bit of time -- while you might want to start work on the product before you finish picking the name. (Indeed, the work might inform the name!) But you have to be able to refer to the product, so you just give it some other name. When it's ready, you give it the "name". That's not what's happening here; what we have here is a big complicated system with a name. We don't expect to replace the name, but we do need to have it so that we can talk about the system.