On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:59 AM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Serge Stinckwich > <serge.stinckw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Serge Stinckwich >>> <serge.stinckw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Nicolas Cellier >>>> <nicolas.cellier.aka.n...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 2016-03-04 19:51 GMT+01:00 Alexandre Bergel <alexandre.ber...@me.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>> I personally never liked the name “SciSmalltalk”. “SciPharo” is much >>>>>> better in my opinion >>>>>> PhaNum is also okay to me. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SciSmalltalk is ugly. >>>> >>>> I don't like the name either. We will find a better sexy name ! >>> >>> Just a random line of thought... >>> PhaNum --> NumPha --> numcha --> numchi >>> --> numqi "An energy around numbers" >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi >> >> Nice ! >> >> Any other ideas ? > > Well, since you asked... Another approach is to consider who the > biggest competitor is - the one you'd like to be compared to and would > like to beat. Maybe its Julia(?), which currently got some buzz. From > a cursory skim, its multiple dispatch, dynamic typing and Scheme & > Common Lisp influences [1] somewhat echoes Smalltalk. We have > similar facility as [2] to already inspect method bytecode and I > reckon we might(?) be able to provide a view of the JITed machine code > and might(?) be possible someday be able to hand-tune that machine > code, which would be good to promote our system as a similar > one-stop-shop as described in [2]. > > So... along the philosophy that when a fight is starting, you should > *first* punch the *biggest* guy on the nose... you could be > provocative and name it Gaston or Fatou [3], except then I discover > the Julia name apparently has nothing to do with Julia Sets [4]. > So.... maybe Julia --> Juliet --> Romeo --> { Romiio, Romiea, Romiia, > Rhomia } -- these being a selection of variations with high > goognique**. However, on the one hand, we'd need to gain the > credibility to back this up, but on the other hand, its not just about > punching some on the nose... such naming can be aspirational. The > research presented by Jim Collins in"Good To Great" advises its quite > beneficial to have an adversary you can compete against in a > *friendly* way. > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(programming_language) > [2] http://www.evanmiller.org/why-im-betting-on-julia.html > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_set > [4] > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29290780/what-does-the-name-of-julia-the-programming-language-refer-to > > ** My this instant newly contrived portmanteau for "google unique".
And btw, it might be good to pick the eyes out of this discussion on Julia for points where do (or will) align and use similar language to promote our Numqi/Abacii system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7109982 cheers -ben
