In the case of Cinder "creative coding" is in reference to a very specific thing and using that term tells me exactly what sort of library it is. Namely being f

In the case of Cinder "creative coding" is in reference to a very specific thing and using that term tells me exactly what sort of library it is. Namely being familiar with other "Creative Coding" frameworks such as OpenFrameworks, Processing, etc I generally know what Cinder is offering and how it's going to approach the problems. The about page description doesn't tell me its approach, just its content and approach is very, very important in these (they almost always follow the same structure). That said, using the "Creative Coding" term makes it all very inside baseball and I totally agree it could be better. openFrameworks falls into the same trap with: "openFrameworks is an open source C++ toolkit for creative coding." Signaling to those who know without telling those who don't. I do feel like Processing does much better with "Processing is an open source programming language and environment for people who want to create images, animations, and interactions" even if it isn't prominent. Then again Processing is the one that pretty much coined this whole "Creative Coding" thing. :)