At Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:45:27 -0400, Carl Eastlund wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > Similar to the way that `rico docs' serves the role of `plt-help', we > > could have `rico games' replace `plt-games'. > > > > For GUI launchers for docs and games under Windows and Mac OS X, I > > suggest `Rico Docs' and `Rico Games'. It's ok to have spaces in GUI-app > > names, and then the documentation can refer to `rico docs' and `rico > > games' commands (i.e., they work whether someone tries to use them via > > a command line or by clicking on a GUI app). > > I thought "rico" was just our administrative script name.
Yes, it depends on what `rico' is for. My own views on some naming issues have evolved: * I was originally in favor of "PLT Racket" as the system name, but I've come around to the view that it should be "Racket" to streamline our marketing. * I originally thought that we needed a tool to unify just `mzc', `setup-plt', and `planet', but I eventually came to think of the unification as for command-line tools more generally. These impressions make me think that command-line tools that are currently invoked through `plt-' names should turn into `rico' commands. I don't think that "Rico Web Server" is the name of the websever, but it makes sense to me that the Racket Web Server is started from the command-line using the general Racket command-line tool, hence `rico web-server'. Why not `rico scribble' and `rico slideshow' instead of `scribble' and `slideshow'? Indeed, now that I've thought about it more, I think that Scribble and Slideshow should be `rico' tools, too. Typing `rico scrib' is not much harder than typing `scribble', and ditto for `rico slide' versus `slideshow'. Granted, using `rico' for the command-line tool instead of the name `racket' is a little awkward, but that's yet another set of issues to balance. The name `racket' seems long to me as a prefix, compared to `rico', but it's not much longer. And maybe the executable currently called `racket' (and we really have to have that standalone executable for starting scripts, etc.) should be `racketrun' or something after all, even though that doesn't fit with the `java' and `perl' and `python and `ruby' precedents. Or maybe the the problem is trying to put all command-line tools as commands within something like `rico'. Maybe `rico' really should be for *programming* tools... but what do we produce other than programming tools? Which tools belong in `rico', and what name do you use for the others when just dropping "PLT" would be too generic? _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
