On 2009-08-25, at 12:35, Grant Rettke wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Aubrey Jaffer<[email protected]> > wrote: >> How about "Essence" for the large language and "Quintessence" for the >> small? > > Your idea is nice, but the names seem a bit too literal. > > From a branding perspective it would throw away the last 30 years of > investment.
Right. I agree that a Scheme by any other name would not smell as sweet (sorry, Juliet!). I was the one who suggested retiring the name `Scheme' as the name of our favorite programming language, and considering it as a family name. I sincerely hope that the overall product of the new effort is called `The Revised^7 Report on Scheme', and thus would be a definition of `R7RS Scheme', which happens to comprise two languages. The two languages ought to get their own branding consistent with that. (I used to work for a multinational that was so obsessed with branding that even department names had to get approved by the branding and logo tsars at head office.) I would recommend to the Committee that two names both of which include the word `Scheme' be chosen, and suggest that they circulate a list of candidates for community reaction. (Perhaps there could be separate rankings for technical merit and for artistic impression :-) As a sidenote, `Essence' and `Quintessence' somewhat suffer from the same problem as the English words `flammable' and `inflammable'. I am not sure which of these is more `essential' (especially since Scheme used to distinguish between essential and derived forms). Perhaps if I'd studied more alchemy in university... -- v _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
