http://catalog.pharo.org is a partial answer, it is also available in-image:
On 07 Dec 2015, at 18:52, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard@mac.com> wrote:
Sigh.
I wish people would choose descriptive names for their projects. I went looking on Smalltalkhub for some capability and what I found are thousands of packages with names that mean nothing and no description entered either. If you want to make sure nobody ever uses your code you've just taken a giant step in the right direction. But if you hope to make something lots of people benefit from - nobody is going to look for "mushroom" when they want crypto capabilities.
Sorry, this has been really bugging me lately. We, as a community, do a lousy job of making our code easy to find.
-Todd Blanchard
On Dec 7, 2015, at 07:38, Ben Coman <btc@openInWorld.com> wrote:
I like it, but it seems you missed my point :) mushroom --> 117,000,000 is two orders of magnitude more hidden. Anyway, maybe I overplay its significance. cheers -ben
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Robert Withers <robert.w.withers@gmail.com> wrote:
I renamed the project to Mushroom and I also dumped the encoding work to focus on shutdown, optimization and serialization. Here's the wiki: https://github.com/SqueakCryptographySquad/Mushroom/wiki
thanks,Robert
On 12/06/2015 01:42 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Robert Withers <robert.w.withers@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/05/2015 09:24 PM, Ben Coman wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Robert Withers <robert.w.withers@gmail.com> wrote:
Now I think you are right on with your observation. Additionally, the number of dialects could increase further with Fuel serialization, just port SecureSession and bits.
Alright, I came up with a name and it may border on the egregious ... presenting ...
"Maelstrom"
Great sounding name. However some general advice for the community, since I see a lot of great sounding project names drowned out in the noise of our web-search-centric universe. A litmus test for project naming is using google search to find which return low search results. Today, its more important to be unique than any other attribute of a name. So in general, *dictionary* english words are not the best. One technique is to intentionally mispell the word you like. Here are some comparative examples (note, the surrounding quotes are required to avoid google trying to be helpful and correct the spelling)...
"maelstrom" --> 7,480,000 "maelstroom" --> 6,200 "maelstrum" --> 2,280 "maelstruum" --> 7
Lots of interesting other techniques can be found by searching on: techniques to generate brand names or domain names.
cheers -ben
I would be happy to change the names to something more unique, though it may take a few. Are you suggesting "maelstruum"?
cheers, Robert
*Suggesting* yes, but the choice is yours ;) You need to own it.
I think maelstruum is certainly memorable with the double "u", but maybe jarring next the the "m". I'm inclined to maelstroom, since I associate it with "zoom". I wouldn't necessarily go for the absolute lowest results. I have an entirely unsubstantiated belief that anything less than 10,000 gives a reasonable chance to compete once a user's browsing history is taken into account. Finally you need to check existing results don't return something abhorrent (I didn't do this).
I'd encourage to play around testing on google search. Its quick and easy to generate and test alternatives. I've added a few more below. "maelstra" --> 3,560 "maelstram" --> 504 "maelstrim" --> 1200 "maelstroon" --> 58 "maelstroomi" --> 4
btw, I wouldn't swap the order of the "ae" since that would be susceptible to real typing errors.
cheers -ben
