I was on a product team at one point, before you joined :) There were dumb names for sure. But the naming RFC was a severe overreaction when it wanted to ban anything other than mundane vogon-esque names. The author also wanted to lecture me about AutoDispose being a bad namepic.twitter.com/Jofb8ZLVtt
-
-
Replying to @ZacSweers @thijsniks
He’s iOS guy, probably he supposed UBAutoDisposeKit.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @OGodovykh @thijsniks
UBRxAutomaticDisposalHandler We kid but this is what that change pushed everyone to do with names
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ZacSweers @thijsniks
But before Mickey Mouse Memo it would be Purgatory or JanitoRx!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Can't comment on the RFC since I wasn't there. I think there are exceptions (AutoDispose is clear enough about what it does) but I know so many services and app names that had names with no relation to what the services did.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Like I said, there were bad examples. The RFC should have said no dumb names, not the extreme "no code names at all". That clearly didn't stick anyway when directors picked the names
: helix, carbon, gladwell, luna, etc2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Gladwell was top-secret project, and it was only codename! Services behind it had proper names :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Top secret in the sense that everyone that worked on it would immediately tell you they're working on a top secret project that they can't talk about :) (For the rest of the class - this was the tipping project)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
And top secret in the sense everyone not lazy to read Submitqueue would be aware of it. But we even had a protocol for disclosing our intentions!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The difference is that project names are supposed to be transient and intended to increase obscurity, which is the opposite of what you want with service names. However, I still think Guinness, Alloy, Helix, and Carbon probably were better off using descriptive names.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
at
retweets
