[SciPy-User] Naming Ideas

Thomas Kluyver takowl@gmail....
Thu Sep 6 05:41:27 CDT 2012


On 6 September 2012 01:58, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
> I am against deprecation because it serves an important purpose/niche.
> However, I can imagine spinning pylab off as a new project that serves its
> current purpose, but allows it to grow outside its current scope.

This sounds reasonable. For instance, I've previously wanted to expand
pylab to include bits from pandas, to make it more competitive with R.
But the details of what goes in are a debate for another day, so let's
not discuss that now.

If we go down this route, I suggest that pylab should not include any
code itself, so that we don't end up with pylab-the-package. Rather,
it should just provide a namespace to access functions and classes
from other projects.

To summarise, the top 3 names so far, with the advantages and drawbacks of each:

- Pylab: For: our community already has the major use of the name, and
it's used in a vaguely similar sense, so we get a running start.
Against: Confusion with existing meaning of pylab, getting pylab.org
domain (no response yet from the owner)
- Scipy: For: our community already has the main use, and it's
probably even closer to the intended meaning (as in the scipy
conferences and scipy-central). Against: confusion with
scipy-the-package.
- Unipy: For: No direct confusion with existing names. Against: We'd
have to build up name recognition from scratch, for a community and
set of projects that are not new. Similarity to Unipay might hinder
searchability.

I suggest that, if we can get hold of the pylab.org domain, we go for
that - it strikes a balance between the existing name recognition and
the difficulty of repurposing a name.

Thomas


More information about the SciPy-User mailing list