On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 10:20 PM, Robert Withers <robert.w.withers@gmail.com> wrote:

I would need to disagree with you as inquiry is possible by description, rather than by name, through conversation with those who don't have to inquire, due to their knowledge [see Meno's Paradox...]. So, a third possibility exists through communal association. Do you know Kevin Bacon? ;-)

I've used that language!

On 12/08/2015 04:02 PM, EuanM wrote:

The philosophical issue behind the disutility of project names like
these is "Meno's Paradox"

On 8 December 2015 at 21:01, EuanM <euanmee@gmail.com> wrote:

"I wish people would choose descriptive names for their projects" - Todd

I agree.

I went looking for the current state of dbxtalk recently.�� It seemed
to ba apackage designed for my needs - to X[-over] from a DB to
[small]talk.

I went there and the the page started talking about "Glorp" and
"Garage".�� Neither are mnemonic or meaningful

These projects are just the tip of the iceberg.

Pharo project names have publisher-only project names.�� The project
name equivalent of write-only computer languages, like Brain-F**k.

On 7 December 2015 at 17:52, 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