Comment only if you have gov't contracts (Score 1) 158
not if you don't have guaranteed government contracts it doesn't!
unless you have already become rich and have market penetration, the name **obviously** matters
not if you don't have guaranteed government contracts it doesn't!
unless you have already become rich and have market penetration, the name **obviously** matters
that makes sense...
the name makes sense, but that's not the test if it is a 'good name' or not imho
in the end the only thing that matters is that it is unique, and that your competition can't take it away from you.
that's where we disagree
ask your non-tech friends...ask them if 'Firefox' is a good name for a computer program you use to view web pages
choosing a good name matters...it's **one factor** in many, and yes, badly named things can become very popular, but **that doesn't mean it's not important to do right**
What name do you propose for Bluetooth?
i don't have all the answers, but let's look at a reverse case...let's look at a *good name choice*
WiMax is a mostly-defunct next generation wireless protocol. If you did network engineering you prob have heard of it...
It is similar to Bluetooth in that way.
WiFi was, to users, something familiar...they chose to name the **next generation** wireless tech "WiMax"
it's not perfect either, but it has the word "max" in it, which is marketable as WiMax was to be a 1Gbit protocol
also, it ***connects to user's a priori knowledge***....
it's LOGICAL, MARKETABLE, AND CONNECTS WITH USERS CURRENT KNOWLEDGE
Bluetooth is just a random word to people! Even longtime network engineers I know had no idea where the name came from.
That's the difference.
Windows was the Federal Government's desktop OS of choice...for millions of desks...all over the world
That level of automatic penetration of the market is absolutely invaluable.
It's very easy to see how M$ leveraged their huge US contracts...it's much easier to have your home OS be the same as your work OS.
That and bundling deals with major PC makers...if you were using computers in that era you should remember all this
i was making the point that, just like the name 'Bluetooth', it may have an actual story behind the name that has some quirky relationship to the tech, but it still doesn't matter
i'm not saying go with a over-focused-grouped name, or generic name, w/e...just a bit more tech related
it really matters to people (assuming you want people to use your software of course
you seriously don't know who Vivaldi was, and you think everybody else is as proudly ignorant as you are.
even if you know who Vivaldi is, it's still a Dumb Name, that's my point...***most users will not get the reference***...just because it has an actual meaning, it doesn't mean it's a good name
'Bluetooth' is a Dumb Name
i sell handmade electronics in my spare time, which use 'bluetooth'...i have to explain *over and over* how 'bluetooth' is similar to wifi to my customers
the bottom line is, even if people know Vivaldi wrote a a well known piece of music with 4 suites like the program (get it), just like Bluetooth has it's own quirky/unique name origin story, **they both just confuse end users**
are you trying to make your program *actual* abstract art? like a Jackson Pollack painting?
unless that's your actual goal, you need to make a **little more** effort to name the thing something less esoteric...i'm not saying dumb it down, i'm seriously against dumbing things down....this is different
i hope that Vivaldi is a great success and i'm sure the developers are great, but this is what i'm commenting about...abstract wacky quirky names need to go...i'm not saying take it to the other extreme, but go with something a bit closer to describing what the function is
does it have something to do with the fact that the word 'suite' is used in both programming and in classical music?
the name actually matters
you base all kinds of choices based on product names...
the name is part of the design...when you don't have any other information, design choices can indicate quality
is Vivaldi intended for a small group of developers only? no? you want non-developers to use it?
the name is not some completely abstract factor
c'mon guys...we *have* to start coming up with better names for products...
"Vivaldi"
sounds like a lesser composer from Mozart's time
or a corrupt Roman proconsul in the early CE
vivaldi could definitely be the name of a new blood thinner drug from Pfizer
damn it...seriously....'vivaldi'
don't tell me what it means b/c i don't care and neither does anyone else...it's a Dumb Name
it's broad enough to say you're "programming" the ATM every time you get cash from it.
i have to take objection to this
*using* a machine and *programing* a machine are different
you're forgetting the user/programmer dichotomy
the programmer designs the system and the user is basically passive in that the programmer of the system defines the user's universe of options
So, Wirth's definition, and your changes can define 'programming' and it won't disagree with my definition.
Wirth is trying to provide an *academic* definition that is *all-inclusive* in it's language
My definition is the reverse...it seeks to simplify what's happening to the most essential.
I'm right. All programming involves controlling machines using symbols.
It's the best definition, and it doesn't disagree with Wirth's definition
you are taking it too far
the difference is characters (aka symbols) stored in memory...not the act of 'print'ing a character on screen
it fully makes logical sense...you write code, store it in memory, computer executes it...the symbols you use are the 'langauge'
there are many people who claim to be 'coders' or 'programmers' who are not, but we can't let that determine how we talk/define this stuff
this really is the best way to understand programming
look...it depends on how you define 'programming'
I'm using a definition that is consistent and logical, but isn't as exclusive as the pedantic definitions many use.
programming is using symbols to control the behavior of a computer...
maybe this will help...it can be 'programming' even if the symbols you use aren't a full 'programming language' in the proper sense
It depends on how you define 'programming'
I'm using a definition that is consistent and logical, but isn't as exclusive as the pedantic definitions many use.
programming is using symbols to control the behavior of a computer...
maybe this will help...it can be 'programming' even if the symbols you use aren't a full 'programming language' in the proper sense
I've noticed several design suggestions in your code.
