3 ms·

How about making them descriptively memorable: - shifting-priorities-routing-service - indiscrete-secrets-vault - gdrp-user-immolator - knock-k

How about making them descriptively memorable: - shifting-priorities-routing-service - indiscrete-secrets-vault - gdrp-user-immolator - knock-knock-whos-this-authn - canihaz-authz I don't buy the "can't rename services" arguments though. It's also hard to rename variables, modules and stuff. We do it. I'll tell the PM I need to rename this function if they want to know what I'm up to. How often does a service morph so much that it needs to fundamentally change its vaguely-descriptive-name? Realistically I don't think I've even seen this happen once.

xeyownt 4y ago
The advantage of making cute is that you can also make them small. I would really hate using shifting-priorities-routing-service all over the place, in particular in combination with steady-allocating-routing-service. Between cute/descriptive, long/small, it all depends on how often/where/long these names are used.
- AYBABTME 4y ago
  You can call it by the cute name in casual speech and still guess what it does by looking at the process/deployment/artifacts name. "I'll deploy knock-knock-whos-this this afternoon" -> `kubectl apply -f knock-knock-whos-this-authn.yml`
Tangurena2 4y ago
I think the "can't rename it" applies to APIs. Some of the PDF functions have COS as part of their name. The original name of Acrobat was Carousel. COS stands for Carousel Object System. The first version of Acrobat was released in 1993.
surement 4y ago
> I'll tell the PM I need to rename this function if they want to know what I'm up to. Why can't more engineers do this? in my experience people rarely ever question the product team and you can see this in the products you use all the time. PMs are not robots, they do things the way that seems best given the knowledge they have of the customer and the software, but engineers have more knowledge of the software and they need to communicate it when it's relevant instead of overcomplicating features by blindly shimmying in what product is asking for.

xeyownt 4y ago

The advantage of making cute is that you can also make them small. I would really hate using shifting-priorities-routing-service all over the place, in particular in combination with steady-allocating-routing-service. Between cute/descriptive, long/small, it all depends on how often/where/long these names are used.

AYBABTME 4y ago
You can call it by the cute name in casual speech and still guess what it does by looking at the process/deployment/artifacts name. "I'll deploy knock-knock-whos-this this afternoon" -> `kubectl apply -f knock-knock-whos-this-authn.yml`

Tangurena2 4y ago

I think the "can't rename it" applies to APIs. Some of the PDF functions have COS as part of their name. The original name of Acrobat was Carousel. COS stands for Carousel Object System. The first version of Acrobat was released in 1993.

surement 4y ago

> I'll tell the PM I need to rename this function if they want to know what I'm up to. Why can't more engineers do this? in my experience people rarely ever question the product team and you can see this in the products you use all the time. PMs are not robots, they do things the way that seems best given the knowledge they have of the customer and the software, but engineers have more knowledge of the software and they need to communicate it when it's relevant instead of overcomplicating features by blindly shimmying in what product is asking for.