* Jonathan Rockway <j...@jrock.us> [2009-05-03 08:00]: > * On Sat, May 02 2009, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > > Yeah, if there are thousands of other programmers using a > > module, then its name can be pretty much anything. > > > > If more or less the only marketing it has is search.cpan.org > > results page, then most potential users will miss it unless > > its name is descriptive and based on keywords someone might > > actually use to search for something like it. > > This is why Perl people should blog more.
Agreed, that helps up to a point. But you can’t natter on about *every* module at the same level of noise. Plus, the number of Perl programmers who don’t mingle with the community and won’t be reached by blog buzz dwarfs the community core; for them, only the slow trickle of mindshare among peers will work. (Actually, s/Perl// – it’s true of all programming communities.) But it’s them who give Perl coin in corporate environments, not the core community directly. Basically I think that irrespective of other marketing efforts, the Zen of Comprehensive Archive Networks remains valid. Ultimately I think the smaller and more focussed a module, the more sense it makes to name it neutrally and descriptively. For complex packages, a more googlable name is more useful, since their mindshare flows from different channels. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
