66 ms·
Descriptive names can still be bad. Cute names have no chance of being useful. Someone else pointed it out or alluded to it, but I suppose there is a gradient o
by bmitc 4y ago
Descriptive names can still be bad. Cute names have no chance of being useful. Someone else pointed it out or alluded to it, but I suppose there is a gradient of abstraction. The level of abstraction, from product to service to component to module to function to variable names, probably determines some allowance in how generic the name can be, from more generic to less generic, respectively.
- ycombobreaker 4y ago> Cute names have no chance of being useful. A cute name can be useful if it implies its intent. This usually relies upon some social shared context. Gopher: mechanism for fetching data Ask Jeeves: search engine Alta Vista: i guess literally a lookout point Web itself is an analogy, and probably so successful that it no longer sounds cute.
- evandale 4y ago> Cute names have no chance of being useful Are the names Amazon, Google, Facebook, Kleenex, Q-Tip, Thermos, Yo-Yo, or Zipper useful? They're all cute names and I'm positive most people could tell you what each of these things do. How is that not useful?
- bmitc 4y agoSee https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34324480 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34324480