They’re both right, of course — the author and his colleague — and this blog post makes an excellent point as to why. I will switch from descriptive to cute on

They’re both right, of course — the author and his colleague — and this blog post makes an excellent point as to why. I will switch from descriptive to cute once I’ve reached a certain level of abstraction. That level can best be defined as the level where I will need to start advocating for the idea with other engineers. A new ssh wrapper for automating access to the manufacturing robots? example.factory.sshtool A log file parser for extracting text-only errors across multiple robot.log lines into structured error objects? example.factory.logs A quarter-long project to build a new abstraction over all our thirteen different categories of manufacturing robot we have deployed on site that replaces a bunch of shell scripts written by the former CTO, and then actually replace all those shell scripts with the new thing, with tests? example.factory.duckling I’d promote it as being named after how ducks imprint on their mother and follow her lead. Kind of a nod to the robots, but also to the former CTO. Cute names can feel a little saccharine but it really helps build advocacy obviously — it’s ultimately a branding / marketing exercise. If you do that day-in day-out at the level of the ssh tool or the log parser — projects that should ideally have a low level of controversy compared to the shell script rewrite — then people are going to get annoyed with you.