[SciPy-User] Naming Ideas
Thu Sep 6 06:42:09 CDT 2012
On 6/09/2012 10:41 p.m., Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> On 6 September 2012 01:58, Benjamin Root <email@example.com> 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
> - 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
> 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.
> SciPy-User mailing list
I don't think the Unipy vs Unipay searchability issue is that valid. The
question is whether Unipy encompasses the intended meaning and for me it
doesn't. Does it mean unify? Does it mean unicode? Obviously not the
latter, probably more the former.
I do agree with Thomas' comment about SciPy being closest to the
intended meaning. I understand that there are issues with the
scipy-the-family vs scipy-the-package etc type issues. However if you
mentally step a few years into the future I think everyone might be
comfortable with scipy being a "scipy related suite".
I prefer scipy to pylab but my comment above about a "scipy related
suite" would be equally applicable to a "pylab related suite". Possibly
one issue with pylab is, as one previous poster noted, it implies a
matlab clone approach. How much truth is in that I don't know as I've
never used Matlab and Matlab compatibility has never been of interest to me.
More information about the SciPy-User