[SciPy-User] Naming Ideas
Thu Sep 6 06:57:23 CDT 2012
I dont think that the name pylab implies a matlab *clone*. An alternative
perhaps, which is true in many ways.
On Sep 6, 2012 1:42 PM, "Brennan Williams" <
> On 6/09/2012 10:41 p.m., Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> > On 6 September 2012 01:58, Benjamin Root <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> >> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > SciPy-User mailing list
> > SciPy-User@scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user
> 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
> SciPy-User mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SciPy-User