duck!

[Walter Bright]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I'm just saying that marketability of D does 
> not change no matter what appropriate term you choose.

And this is our fundamental disagreement. I think the choices of names matters a 
lot.

If names don't matter, why not name your son "Sue" ? :-)

> But were there functions named zoomTechnology() and smartLink()?  Were 
> their tools named zoom or smartl or something?  Is that what pushed them 
> over the edge, or was it the bullet on the packaging that said:
> 
> * Includes zoom technology!

I don't believe that there is any fundamental difference between the name of a 
function and the name of the technology.



> But people don't search google for "duck typing programming languages" 
> and pick the language they're going to use from this list!

They may very well search "duck typing in the D programming language". Heck, 
that's what I do when I'm investigating whether language X supports feature Y. I 
do it a lot.


> I think you 
> are really going cuckoo over this feature like it's the best thing since 
> ranges, and I don't see it being that.

I am happy with the name ranges for what it does, I think it's exactly right. Am 
I going cuckoo over this one? Perhaps. But I also believe that even getting the 
small details right is important.

It reminds me of when a friend visited my house. After a very brief interval, he 
announced could tell it was a quality house, not a cheap facade. Intrigued, I 
asked him how. He said that the screw slots holding the wall plates on were all 
aligned the same way. It's a wholly irrelevant detail, added absolutely nothing 
to the function, but he said such attention to detail indicated the contractor 
cared about getting the details right.


> Invariant vs. immutable is not the same as adaptTo vs. duck.  Invariant 
> already had a meaning in D1, and when choosing a new name, it was 
> logical to use immutable.  Is immutable an 'exciting marketing term'?  
> No, it's as boring as they come.  But it's definitely the best term for 
> the job.  Let's focus on choosing the best term for what 'adaptTo' does, 
> and when we market that D does duck typing in an article or a list of 
> features (that shows up on google), we can include all the features of D 
> that do duck typing.

With invariant I *always* had to explain it (even to people with no knowledge of 
the D1 meaning), and people would looked puzzled even after the explanation. 
With immutable, I stopped having to explain it. The name change was a big win.