Hi Christian, > >> IMHO the programming language/compiler a utility is written with is an > >> implementation detail that should not manifest itself in the utility's > >> name. In this case, I think "GNU Distutils" would be better.
> > "GNU Diskutils" > > 1+ > > David > I'm sorry but I do not agree. Guile is not an implementation detail in > this case. It means that the package is based on Guile. It's like xterm > (a terminal for x window), gnome-terminal (a terminal based on the GNOME > framework) and so on. It is, by definition, an implementation detail: whether your user know (or not ) in what language the tool is implemented won't make _any_ difference on how they will use it, neither will it change the output of their usage ... Besides, having Guile in the name may even be a 'blocker': 'out there' most do still fear scheme, in general, and Guile is no exception. They will question, because of prejudgment mostly, if it 'works well', why the hell is it not implemented in php, python, go, java ... in a 'real language' ... If it was a library for Guile, it would be different. As an example, I'm the author and maintainer of GNU Foliot, not GNU Guile-Foliot, because it is an app (even though users could extend it, but that is anther story...) ... users (most users) are not interested to know i what language it's been written , they want to know if is good, if it does the job, if it is well maintained ... My 2c, Do as you wish of course, David
pgpKpGhxg15tq.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
