> I'll never understand this mentality, where a silly project name is a source of "fun." I would never dare tell anyone else what should be fun for them... exce

> I'll never understand this mentality, where a silly project name is a source of "fun." I would never dare tell anyone else what should be fun for them... except in this case, where I will say that funny names are not actually fun. I worked in a company that would "break ground" a new microservice every other week with overlapping scope of other microservices. (poor planning in resource allocation), which lead to some services named after Greek mythology that loose describes what service does...sometimes... Then they started giving more descriptive names, services that just do X and named X, except later they started doing Y, and now it's confusing. Then we had service XYZ (abbreviated from what it supposed to do), it took too long to build, so naturally management decided to make a Z service and remove functionality from XYZ. I think the author comes from a similar place where scope for service is constantly changing, and silly names are the only source of dopamine.