On Jul 9, 8:14 pm, James Reeves <jree...@weavejester.com> wrote: > Ruby and Rubygems has been using single-segment namespaces for years, > with no major problems. I don't think name clashes are a problem in > practise, because projects tend to have original names.
It works up to a point. It is claimed that university-level English speakers know about 10k words. The universe of possible names is probably larger, but not infinite. Ruby apparently has about 14k gems, and the advantage of a central repository where you can check if a name is in use. They still have things like AccessControl and access_control as two different projects. The JVM doesn't have a central repository, at least 10 to 100 times more libraries than Ruby, and half a dozen different languages running on it. What are the chances that people will think up half a million unique single-segment names? That said, I would leap at a chance to shorten Java names, even if it were just to chop off the leading "com" or "org". I'm pretty sure the Java package naming convention is overkill in many (most?) cases. But as Laurent said, it may not be worth the trouble to reinvent something else. I guess I'll go with Chas' suggestion to "use discretion and sound judgement" for now :) jf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
