Comment by tome 8 years ago Can we please stop polluting the global namespace with names like "Hack"? 11 comments tome Reply majewsky 8 years ago It's not a problem in practice. In most package managers, fonts have a common suffix or prefix anyway. In Arch Linux, Hack is "ttf-hack", for example. rayascott 8 years ago It's the name of the typeface. tome 8 years ago That's exactly what I'm objecting to. coldtea 8 years ago Because? tome 8 years ago Because it's a short, extremely common, word in our field. Choosing to use it will cause confusion, and it's also rather insulting to those who wanted to use it but restrained themselves for the greater good. dri_ft 8 years ago These sorts of things also end up being really hard to Google when you need to look something up about them. 2 replies → coldtea 8 years ago That doesn't even make sense.What if there is a font named Hack and a language (which, FWIK, exists as well)?In fact if it's "extremely common" then already there's no such concern. Now it just has N+1 uses.Would it hurt anyone to use context to know which of the two is talked about? 2 replies →
majewsky 8 years ago It's not a problem in practice. In most package managers, fonts have a common suffix or prefix anyway. In Arch Linux, Hack is "ttf-hack", for example.
rayascott 8 years ago It's the name of the typeface. tome 8 years ago That's exactly what I'm objecting to.
coldtea 8 years ago Because? tome 8 years ago Because it's a short, extremely common, word in our field. Choosing to use it will cause confusion, and it's also rather insulting to those who wanted to use it but restrained themselves for the greater good. dri_ft 8 years ago These sorts of things also end up being really hard to Google when you need to look something up about them. 2 replies → coldtea 8 years ago That doesn't even make sense.What if there is a font named Hack and a language (which, FWIK, exists as well)?In fact if it's "extremely common" then already there's no such concern. Now it just has N+1 uses.Would it hurt anyone to use context to know which of the two is talked about? 2 replies →
tome 8 years ago Because it's a short, extremely common, word in our field. Choosing to use it will cause confusion, and it's also rather insulting to those who wanted to use it but restrained themselves for the greater good. dri_ft 8 years ago These sorts of things also end up being really hard to Google when you need to look something up about them. 2 replies → coldtea 8 years ago That doesn't even make sense.What if there is a font named Hack and a language (which, FWIK, exists as well)?In fact if it's "extremely common" then already there's no such concern. Now it just has N+1 uses.Would it hurt anyone to use context to know which of the two is talked about? 2 replies →
dri_ft 8 years ago These sorts of things also end up being really hard to Google when you need to look something up about them. 2 replies →
coldtea 8 years ago That doesn't even make sense.What if there is a font named Hack and a language (which, FWIK, exists as well)?In fact if it's "extremely common" then already there's no such concern. Now it just has N+1 uses.Would it hurt anyone to use context to know which of the two is talked about? 2 replies →
It's not a problem in practice. In most package managers, fonts have a common suffix or prefix anyway. In Arch Linux, Hack is "ttf-hack", for example.
It's the name of the typeface.
That's exactly what I'm objecting to.
Because?
Because it's a short, extremely common, word in our field. Choosing to use it will cause confusion, and it's also rather insulting to those who wanted to use it but restrained themselves for the greater good.
These sorts of things also end up being really hard to Google when you need to look something up about them.
2 replies →
That doesn't even make sense.
What if there is a font named Hack and a language (which, FWIK, exists as well)?
In fact if it's "extremely common" then already there's no such concern. Now it just has N+1 uses.
Would it hurt anyone to use context to know which of the two is talked about?
2 replies →