Re: Rename src/

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 08/14/2012 03:36 PM, Robert T. Short wrote:
> On 08/14/2012 11:54 AM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> > On 08/14/2012 12:46 PM, Robert T. Short wrote:
> > > On 08/14/2012 10:43 AM, Michael D Godfrey wrote:
> > > > On 08/14/2012 12:39 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> > > > > One last thing in the source tree reorganisation. Can we rename
> > > > > src/ to interp/?
> > > > >
> > > > > - Jordi G. H.
> > > > I vote yes.:-)
> > > So if we are going to make descriptive names, why not really get
> > > descriptive - interpreter instead of interp, libfortran instead of
> > > libfort, etc.? Long names inflict minor inconvenience I suppose, but
> > > shortened names seems so, well, FORTRAN and 1960.
> >
> > An emphatic "no" on that idea. I go with historic precedent. The
> > reason these condensed names came about is that it cuts down on
> > keystrokes and length of names. The latter was important in 1960 when
> > memory and screen size was limited, but the former point on keystrokes
> > still holds. I realize there is tab-completion for a lot of things
> > these days, but still there is benefit to adhering to convention.
> > "src" is a common condensation in the linux tree. "usr", "src", "etc"
> > are ingrained symbols that make a programmer efficient, just like
> > memorized control sequences for a favorite editor. It doesn't mean
> > much to someone who's not a programmer at heart and just pecks around
> > on the keyboard, but for folks who do programming 24+/7+ it makes a
> > difference. (I'm not one them, but hold that view out of deference.)
> >
> > Along that same lines, I would avoid spaces in directories for sure.
> > Also avoid directory names that have several letters in common at the
> > front, such as "interp-core" and "interpfcn". Having such things makes
> > tab completion or searching clumsy at times. If the "interp" must be a
> > commonality, my feeling is to then make a directory "interp" with
> > subdirectories "core" and "fcn". Most of all, be consistent. For
> > example, "corefcn", "interp-core", "interpfcn" has some
> > inconsistencies in the sense that
> >
> > 1) Some directories have hyphenation, some don't.
> > 2) The "fcn" is almost a redundancy, unless the implication is that
> > there is some function in Octave called "core" and some function
> > inside Octave called "interp". Otherwise, if it just means inside the
> > directory are some functions related to "core", for example, then what
> > else would the programmer think is in there if it were just "src/core"?
> > 3) There's "corefcn", there's "interpfcn", and then there's a
> > combination of the two "interp-core". Perhaps that's correct, but on
> > first read it makes one pause.
> >
> > Dan
> Names with normal usage, like 'src' are meaningful and I see no reason
> to go against long-standing convention even if it was cooked up based on
> PDP 8 hardware before some of the people on this list were born. On the
> hand, as someone else said, interp makes me think of an interpolator and
> libfort makes me think of Daniel Boone's library. Names should be
> descriptive. Now if we were using names like
> 'TheDirectoryThatContainsALotOfFortanCode' I would agree with you, but
> the difference between interp and interpreter is such a small number of
> characters that even my meager typing skills are able to cope.
>
> I do agree with you about the spaces and some of the rest of your comments.
>
> Bob

I hear you on meaningful names, but remember that context is important 
as well.  If one is in the "octave user" frame of mind then 
"interpolator" jumps to the front, but if in the "octave programmer" 
frame of mind something near the top branch of a hierarchy would be 
"interpreter" because that is a fundamental concept of computer programs.

Daniel Boone's library?  There must be a cable channel rebroadcasting 
old black and white television like Big Ben...  I suppose Boone would 
have to have chiseled the name of his library on a plank, so maybe he 
too liked condensed names.  Probably would have gone with F.L.

Which brings to mind that it is a balance, because one doesn't want 
names so short that searching on them turns up all sort of extraneous 
alternate names.  I really do think that the success of unix/linux is 
partly because of the organized directory structure.  Think of the 
unfathomable directory structure of Windows.  It never makes sense where 
files reside and as a result one is never very organized with Windows: 
it's just plop some files here, make a temp dir there.

Dan