4 ms·

I agree the naming is confusing, so that's why we're renaming it :) I don't see the difference between osh / olang vs. osh / ysh ? Why is the former clearer

• zamadatix 4y ago
  Imagining being asked the following as if I hadn't read a ton on the project already this is how'd I'd answer: Which of the following binaries are associated with the oil project? A) osh B) ysh A probably, not B. Which of the following binaries is associated with bash compatibility? A) osh B) ysh Dunno, they both look like shells. 50/50 random guess on each. Which of the following binaries is used on programs written in the oil language? A) osh B) ysh Dunno, they both look like shells. A) looks like it's related to oil though so maybe that one again. Now flip ysh for olang... Which of the following binaries are associated with the oil project? A) osh B) olang A and B both seem likely. Which of the following binaries is associated with bash compatibility? A) osh B) olang A is named like shells, probably that. Which of the following binaries is used on programs written in the oil language? A) osh B) olang B about repeats the question back so B, also I'm now doubly sure osh was the bash compatible option in the last question. I'm not saying olang is the right final answer but the name should first try to make sense THEN try to sound clever. "ysh"/"soil" lack any self description and require you already know what they do to understand the name instead of the other way around.
  • chubot 4y ago
    Thank you for explaining the reasoning -- that helps. I would say that the third question is invalid -- once there is YSH, there is NO MORE "Oil", and no more "Oil language". The name is just YSH. I agree there's a slight problem with the first question, using "Oils for Unix". You might assume that osh is what you should use rather than ysh, because it starts with "O". But I don't know how to solve that problem :) I think that simply documenting osh, ysh, and "oils for unix" could be sufficient. --- One idea I thought of is to rename EVERYTHING. - ysh could be the compatible shell (formerly osh) - yam could be the new Python-like language. Problem: Yam isn't googleable, I can't find a better name. What do you think? Ideas welcome (FWIW ysh sort of comes from "the shell with hay". Hay is one component of the project.)
    • zamadatix 4y ago
      Something like ysh and yam seems great as well, assuming ysh then means yam shell and the overall project name is related to yam in some way. I don’t have a better “rename everything” name in mind though, hard to say without a good understanding of the other components. One thing to consider is you kind of get 1 “nonsense” pass in that you can really pick anything as the project name long as everything gets named in relation. E.g. hardly anyone knows rust is named after the rust fungus because it’s hardy but everyone gets that rustc is the compiler, rustup updates rust, .rs and .rlib are the file extensions, rust lang refers to the language in particular, and the community makes tons of rust related name puns from there. Oil was actually a really solid option for that kind of base beyond the connotation often being negative.
      • chubot 4y ago
        I see your point about connecting the project name to the binary name, but it's going to be hard to find that global name All of these should be available - sudo apt-get $PROJECT_NAME - $PROJECT_NAME.org - github.com/$PROJECT_NAME - twitter/$PROJECT_NAME etc. Random brainstorming - OYL - OYLS - OYLS for Unix So you have a "Y" in there for YSH. But it seems a bit ugly IMO