Austin Schutz writes: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:04:11PM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote: > > > The FF:: namespace is a terrible idea, in my opinion. I expect that > > it will be meaningless to the majority of module searchers. The > > argument that search makes names irrelevant is just silly. > > ..because?
There are several places where somebody could first encounter a module name: > Ok, I want to do something with my flash file. I search for > 'flash file'... Oh look, there's a flash file parser. Do I care what > it's called? A large search results listing is one such place. You want to be able to pick out the potentially useful modules from the list, so having their names be as meaningful as possible helps with this. > No. I concur that the module name is effectively meaningless, Since "FF" is meaningless, why bother including it at all? It's just noise. > but I don't see that it makes any difference to the searcher. I'm much more likely to spend time investigating modules whose names I can understand. I suspect I'm not alone on that. > It's marginally helpful to have a useful name when including it > in a module so code doesn't look like $flv = new ASDFsdafs::sjhsdlk, That's a second place module names are encountered, and I'd say that's beyond marginal. Lots of code is read by people other than the original author, and it's good if the approximate use of a module is guessable just from the calling code. > but beyond that, what tangible and practical difference does it make? Another place I encounter module names is the RSS feed for Cpan uploads; I'm interested in seeing what sort of things people are making available, and looking out for things that are of interest. There are also feeds for AnnoCpan and Cpan Ratings -- if you see a comment on or a review of a module it's better if you know vaguely what the module is about (or at least if can see what field it's in, so you can dismiss it if it isn't anything of interest to you). People mention modules at PerlMonks, on mailing lists, and in the pub at Perl Mongers meetings and conferences. In all of these places a meaningful name helps everybody identify the module being discussed. Or to put it another way round: if a meaningful name is available, what's the advantage of going out of your way to pick an acknowledged meaningless one? > > If that were true, the practice of bouncing name ideas off this > > email list would cease, and I'd just name it FLV.pm. > > As I understand it there's some rationale for keeping the top level > namespace small, so that would probably not be a good choice. Almost. I think that it's cos if you call it FLV it's effectively claiming to be _the_ module for FLV. It's more future proof to call it FLV::Something, anticipating other people contributing FLV::SomethingElse later. Unfortunately there seems to be a meme going round where the advice not to use a single-level name for a module has morphed into not using a multi-level name where the first level is new. > I submit these long threads about which module name is better > than some other similar name are a waste of time, If you don't care what modules are called then don't participate in them! By definition whatever a module ends up being called you will be satisified! If some of the rest of us (including a modules' author) are fussy it doesn't make module names worse for you ... Smylers -- May God bless us with enough foolishness to believe that we can make a difference in this world, so that we can do what others claim cannot be done.
