5 ms·

I made an account on HN because this is the worst post I have ever read here. NO!!!! DON'T USE CUTE NAMES!!! I am currently working with a big company for my

I made an account on HN because this is the worst post I have ever read here. NO!!!! DON'T USE CUTE NAMES!!! I am currently working with a big company for my apps and it is full of cute names which are the biggest problem for me. To launch an app you have first to integrate the Zaamla-Service into your IDE. Then just patch things up with Pimble, upload the signed HIMA-Package into the Katala and activate after that Zanik on the Bremmis platform to include the Mumana-Service to distribute the app. What? It doesn't work? That's because you didn't integrate the Jonhson-Rod stupid? How is it supposed to work without the Johnson-Rod? Are you even a real programmer?

pprotas 4y ago
I’m sorry but I just have to link this classic video, this comment reminds me of it: https://youtu.be/y8OnoxKotPQ https://youtu.be/y8OnoxKotPQ
nextlevelwizard 4y ago
Sounds more like architectural/tooling problem. We use pretty much random names for our servers and other hardware, but all of that is abstracted so during normal operation you don't even know what thing you are using unless you want to for some reason. I am not really for or against using names instead of numbers or whatever, because I should never even need to care if things are done right.
- 28304283409234 4y ago
  I heard that Ifthingsaredoneright is a really nice planet to visit one day.
  - EFreethought 4y ago
    It's better than being on planet someonewasintentionallystupid.
Gigachad 4y ago
Doesn’t sound like that would be any easier with different names
jeroenhd 4y ago
Would this be easier if you needed to integrate with user-provider-service, timestamp-conversion-service, image-storage-service (which also stores videos these days, though HEIFF and h.265 has obviously been moved to iOS-image-storage-service so customers can be billed for the special software that requires patents) to upload a signed SecuredApplicationPackage file to InternalExternalSoftwareManager so that it can be included in the application_distributor next time ReleaseMgr decides to update its endpoints? What, you forgot to integrate with the SecondaryDataValidationService? How is it supposed to work without SecondaryDataValidationService? Are you even a real programmer? God forbid you use the old DataValidationService or ReplacementDataValidationService, those have been deprecated for years. And you don't want to make a fool of yourself by using ImageStore instead of image-storage-service, ImageStore is clearly for operating system images not pictures! And what are you doing touching IntermediateDataLayer? That's only for enterprise customers, shouldn't that be obvious? It'd like adding a dependency to CachingLayerV2 to a ServerSideSoftware deployment package, simply ridiculous! If you have a forest of microservices to browse through, it doesn't matter if they're named after pokemon or if some engineer came up with a descriptive name. You need a guide either way, because half of the services that sound like they may be relevant do something completely irrelevant or have been put in maintenance only mode years ago anyway.
- xeyownt 4y ago
  Couldn't have said it better. Overall, common sense should be the rule, not "always descriptive / always cute".
  - beckingz 4y ago
    The thing about common sense is that sense isn't common. Also, more accurately, the environmental information used for our common sense naming changes out from under us.
- Draiken 4y ago
  Not only that, but half of those services would become acronyms very quickly. Would this be easier if you needed to integrate with UPS, TCS, ISS (which also stores videos these days, though HEIFF and h.265 has obviously been moved to iOS-ISS so customers can be billed for the special software that requires patents) to upload a signed SAP file to IESM so that it can be included in the AD next time RM decides to update its endpoints?
gilbetron 4y ago
Right? It's like having to "google" to find out how to use your "apple" to interface with "postgres" that's running on "linux"! It should be "global-web-searcher-1", "computer-vendor-17", "database-18" and "open-source-operating-system-derived-from-another-operating-system"!
- danparsonson 4y ago
  Exactly! That's why I always advocate giving every monitor in an office its own unique name (mine is Moe!) and every keyboard, chair, desk, etc. Who wants to use those stuffy descriptive generic names?? Obviously trademarks and other product names are more useful if they're unique; Google, Apple, etc. are not components of a system, they're products. It's like getting your car fixed - they don't tell you the Jane and the two front Turnipheads need replacing, now do they?
  - gilbetron 4y ago
    So you name your keyboard "character-event-generator-1", your chair "butt-and-back-holder-1" and your desk "four-stick-and-board-to-hold-items"?
    - danparsonson 4y ago
      Nope - we already have widely understood descriptive nouns for those things. If I walk into an office and someone asks me to bring a chair over, I know instantly what they're talking about. They might need to qualify it - that blue, high-backed chair with the arms, for example - but if they said 'bring Clive over', I'd be stuck until I learned the (fun!) names of the office chairs, and would likely be confused for a long time until I managed to remember who was who, not to mention that there would be no other incentive to learn those names as that information has no value outside the office. This is the point at issue here. We also have widely understood descriptive nouns in software development - for example if I hand you a class called 'xyz-repository', you probably know instantly that it's a class designed to manage the lifetime of xyz objects that are persisted to and retrieved from a database. If we had an identity service we could choose to call it: a) login-and-token-management-service, per your example; unnecessarily wordy but obvious b) identity-service c) gatekeeper, which is fanciful but at least slightly descriptive; we'd probably be able to guess its purpose from the name d) dr-octopus, which is lots of fun and completely useless for helping me to remember what it does Hopefully you can see that b) is the most boring but most widely understandably name; if b) is not an option because we've invented a new thing that doesn't have a descriptive noun, then a) is still the best choice of the remaining three as it tells everyone what it does without requiring any inside knowledge. It's about cognitive load - some DSLs add value, others just increase the amount of mental effort required to understand the system.
eYrKEC2 4y ago
What if this is survivor-bias? The only services that continue to live have memorable, marketable names that stick in people's heads and make them want to say the service because of the cheap dopamine hit they get from being "in-the-know". The ones that no longer exist were purely utilitarian, but since their identity was pure functionality they are only known as their bugs and quickly despised? --- I don't know if this is true. Just asking the question.

pprotas 4y ago

I’m sorry but I just have to link this classic video, this comment reminds me of it: https://youtu.be/y8OnoxKotPQ https://youtu.be/y8OnoxKotPQ

nextlevelwizard 4y ago

Sounds more like architectural/tooling problem. We use pretty much random names for our servers and other hardware, but all of that is abstracted so during normal operation you don't even know what thing you are using unless you want to for some reason. I am not really for or against using names instead of numbers or whatever, because I should never even need to care if things are done right.

28304283409234 4y ago
I heard that Ifthingsaredoneright is a really nice planet to visit one day.
- EFreethought 4y ago
  It's better than being on planet someonewasintentionallystupid.

Gigachad 4y ago

Doesn’t sound like that would be any easier with different names

jeroenhd 4y ago

Would this be easier if you needed to integrate with user-provider-service, timestamp-conversion-service, image-storage-service (which also stores videos these days, though HEIFF and h.265 has obviously been moved to iOS-image-storage-service so customers can be billed for the special software that requires patents) to upload a signed SecuredApplicationPackage file to InternalExternalSoftwareManager so that it can be included in the application_distributor next time ReleaseMgr decides to update its endpoints? What, you forgot to integrate with the SecondaryDataValidationService? How is it supposed to work without SecondaryDataValidationService? Are you even a real programmer? God forbid you use the old DataValidationService or ReplacementDataValidationService, those have been deprecated for years. And you don't want to make a fool of yourself by using ImageStore instead of image-storage-service, ImageStore is clearly for operating system images not pictures! And what are you doing touching IntermediateDataLayer? That's only for enterprise customers, shouldn't that be obvious? It'd like adding a dependency to CachingLayerV2 to a ServerSideSoftware deployment package, simply ridiculous! If you have a forest of microservices to browse through, it doesn't matter if they're named after pokemon or if some engineer came up with a descriptive name. You need a guide either way, because half of the services that sound like they may be relevant do something completely irrelevant or have been put in maintenance only mode years ago anyway.

xeyownt 4y ago
Couldn't have said it better. Overall, common sense should be the rule, not "always descriptive / always cute".
- beckingz 4y ago
  The thing about common sense is that sense isn't common. Also, more accurately, the environmental information used for our common sense naming changes out from under us.
Draiken 4y ago
Not only that, but half of those services would become acronyms very quickly. Would this be easier if you needed to integrate with UPS, TCS, ISS (which also stores videos these days, though HEIFF and h.265 has obviously been moved to iOS-ISS so customers can be billed for the special software that requires patents) to upload a signed SAP file to IESM so that it can be included in the AD next time RM decides to update its endpoints?

gilbetron 4y ago

Right? It's like having to "google" to find out how to use your "apple" to interface with "postgres" that's running on "linux"! It should be "global-web-searcher-1", "computer-vendor-17", "database-18" and "open-source-operating-system-derived-from-another-operating-system"!

danparsonson 4y ago
Exactly! That's why I always advocate giving every monitor in an office its own unique name (mine is Moe!) and every keyboard, chair, desk, etc. Who wants to use those stuffy descriptive generic names?? Obviously trademarks and other product names are more useful if they're unique; Google, Apple, etc. are not components of a system, they're products. It's like getting your car fixed - they don't tell you the Jane and the two front Turnipheads need replacing, now do they?
- gilbetron 4y ago
  So you name your keyboard "character-event-generator-1", your chair "butt-and-back-holder-1" and your desk "four-stick-and-board-to-hold-items"?
  - danparsonson 4y ago
    Nope - we already have widely understood descriptive nouns for those things. If I walk into an office and someone asks me to bring a chair over, I know instantly what they're talking about. They might need to qualify it - that blue, high-backed chair with the arms, for example - but if they said 'bring Clive over', I'd be stuck until I learned the (fun!) names of the office chairs, and would likely be confused for a long time until I managed to remember who was who, not to mention that there would be no other incentive to learn those names as that information has no value outside the office. This is the point at issue here. We also have widely understood descriptive nouns in software development - for example if I hand you a class called 'xyz-repository', you probably know instantly that it's a class designed to manage the lifetime of xyz objects that are persisted to and retrieved from a database. If we had an identity service we could choose to call it: a) login-and-token-management-service, per your example; unnecessarily wordy but obvious b) identity-service c) gatekeeper, which is fanciful but at least slightly descriptive; we'd probably be able to guess its purpose from the name d) dr-octopus, which is lots of fun and completely useless for helping me to remember what it does Hopefully you can see that b) is the most boring but most widely understandably name; if b) is not an option because we've invented a new thing that doesn't have a descriptive noun, then a) is still the best choice of the remaining three as it tells everyone what it does without requiring any inside knowledge. It's about cognitive load - some DSLs add value, others just increase the amount of mental effort required to understand the system.

eYrKEC2 4y ago

What if this is survivor-bias? The only services that continue to live have memorable, marketable names that stick in people's heads and make them want to say the service because of the cheap dopamine hit they get from being "in-the-know". The ones that no longer exist were purely utilitarian, but since their identity was pure functionality they are only known as their bugs and quickly despised? --- I don't know if this is true. Just asking the question.