alt Hacker News> This would be career suicide in virtually any other technical field.
This article would certainly disagree with you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Def...
> the Golden Gate Bridge tells you it spans the Golden Gate strait.
Is that even a meaningful distinction? Does anyone think, "Gee, I'd really like to cross the Golden Gate strait?" or do they think "I want to get to Napa?".
> The Hoover Dam is a dam, named after the president who commissioned it, not “Project Thunderfall” or “AquaHold.”
It was actually called the "Boulder Canyon Project" while being built, referred to as "Hoover Dam" even though finished during the Roosevelt administration, officially called "Boulder Dam", and only later officially renamed to "Hoover Dam".
The fact that Herbert Hoover initiated the project tells you nothing meaningful about it. Would "Reitzlib" be a better name than "Requests"?
> If you wrote 100 CLIs, you will never counter with a cobra.
But out in the real world, you could encounter a Shelby Cobra sports car, Bell AH-1 Cobra chopper, USS Cobra (SP-626) patrol boat, Colt Cobra handgun, etc.
> No chemist wakes up and decides to call it “Steve” because Steve is a funny name and they think it’ll make their paper more approachable.
When you open your medicine cabinet, do you look for a jar labeled "acetylsalicylic acid", "2-propylvaleric acid", or "N-acetyl-para-aminophenol"? Probably not.
It's a bad sign when all of the examples in an article don't even agree with the author's point.
Replies
Biology is another discipline where the author is wrong. See e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog_protein
I think the author makes a hard distinction between consumer products and infrastructure/engineering products. The Shelby Cobra has a funny name, but its engine is the memorably named V8. The Hoover Dam is a dam, and the Golden Gate Bridge is a bridge.
We can argue about namespace pollution and overly long names, but I think there's a point there. When I look at other profession's jargon, I never have the impression they are catching Pokemon like programmers do.
Except for the ones with Latin and Greek names, but old mistakes die hard and they're not bragging about their intelligibility.
> > No chemist wakes up and decides to call it “Steve” because Steve is a funny name and they think it’ll make their paper more approachable.
The author is just wrong. Chemistry is fairly jam-packed with various cutesy names either to amuse the authors or because they’re attempting to make an algorithm memorable to the field.
Off the top of my head:
- SHAKE and RATTLE: Bond constraint algorithms.
- CHARMm: An MD package but you’d never guess it from the name
- Amber: Another MD package that you’d never guess from the name.
- So so many acronyms from NMR: COSY, TOCSY, NOESY
The list goes on and on and permeates most of the subfields in one form or another.
If you want really cutesy names, though, look in molecular biology.