<div dir="ltr">It seemed to me that smalltalk has always had the opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of packaging that product-oriented projects are concerned with. This seems tied up with the contradictory relation between the (democratically) relatedness of ideas and the (capitalist) constraints of money.<div><br></div><div>If you look at a page of text, there are no namespaces. There are no use of words with arbitrarily assigned word-forms. The spaces (relations) are between the words (and even between the letters). The accessibility is largely subjective (knowing the meaning of a word), the accessibility is not a package.</div><div><br></div><div>It seems to me that the practice of giving a package a vivid or redolent name (which may have nothing to do with its etymology) is falling into the package mentality twice over -- not only is a package built, but it is then sold through the imitation of a viral meme.</div><div><br></div><div>So I would say that its "hidden" nature is of more magnitude than that.</div><div><br></div><div>But as Ben says. Anyway, maybe I overplay its significance.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Huw</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 7 December 2015 at 15:38, Ben Coman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:btc@openinworld.com" target="_blank">btc@openinworld.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I like it, but it seems you missed my point :)<br>
mushroom --> 117,000,000 is two orders of magnitude more hidden.<br>
Anyway, maybe I overplay its significance.<br>
cheers -ben<br>
<br>
On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Robert Withers<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5"><<a href="mailto:robert.w.withers@gmail.com">robert.w.withers@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I renamed the project to Mushroom and I also dumped the encoding work to<br>
> focus on shutdown, optimization and serialization. Here's the wiki:<br>
> <a href="https://github.com/SqueakCryptographySquad/Mushroom/wiki" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/SqueakCryptographySquad/Mushroom/wiki</a><br>
><br>
> thanks,Robert<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 12/06/2015 01:42 AM, Ben Coman wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Robert Withers<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:robert.w.withers@gmail.com">robert.w.withers@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> On 12/05/2015 09:24 PM, Ben Coman wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Robert Withers<br>
>>>> <<a href="mailto:robert.w.withers@gmail.com">robert.w.withers@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Now I think you are right on with your observation. Additionally, the<br>
>>>>> number<br>
>>>>> of dialects could increase further with Fuel serialization, just port<br>
>>>>> SecureSession and bits.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Alright, I came up with a name and it may border on the egregious ...<br>
>>>>> presenting ...<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> "Maelstrom"<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Great sounding name. However some general advice for the community,<br>
>>>> since I see a lot of great sounding project names drowned out in the<br>
>>>> noise of our web-search-centric universe. A litmus test for project<br>
>>>> naming is using google search to find which return low search results.<br>
>>>> Today, its more important to be unique than any other attribute of a<br>
>>>> name. So in general, *dictionary* english words are not the best.<br>
>>>> One technique is to intentionally mispell the word you like. Here are<br>
>>>> some comparative examples (note, the surrounding quotes are required<br>
>>>> to avoid google trying to be helpful and correct the spelling)...<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> "maelstrom" --> 7,480,000<br>
>>>> "maelstroom" --> 6,200<br>
>>>> "maelstrum" --> 2,280<br>
>>>> "maelstruum" --> 7<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Lots of interesting other techniques can be found by searching on:<br>
>>>> techniques to generate brand names or domain names.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> cheers -ben<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I would be happy to change the names to something more unique, though it<br>
>>> may<br>
>>> take a few. Are you suggesting "maelstruum"?<br>
>>><br>
>>> cheers,<br>
>>> Robert<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>> *Suggesting* yes, but the choice is yours ;) You need to own it.<br>
>><br>
>> I think maelstruum is certainly memorable with the double "u", but<br>
>> maybe jarring next the the "m". I'm inclined to maelstroom, since I<br>
>> associate it with "zoom". I wouldn't necessarily go for the absolute<br>
>> lowest results. I have an entirely unsubstantiated belief that<br>
>> anything less than 10,000 gives a reasonable chance to compete once a<br>
>> user's browsing history is taken into account. Finally you need to<br>
>> check existing results don't return something abhorrent (I didn't do<br>
>> this).<br>
>><br>
>> I'd encourage to play around testing on google search. Its quick and<br>
>> easy to generate and test alternatives. I've added a few more below.<br>
>> "maelstra" --> 3,560<br>
>> "maelstram" --> 504<br>
>> "maelstrim" --> 1200<br>
>> "maelstroon" --> 58<br>
>> "maelstroomi" --> 4<br>
>><br>
>> btw, I wouldn't swap the order of the "ae" since that would be<br>
>> susceptible to real typing errors.<br>
>><br>
>> cheers -ben<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>