This just feels like an old man yelling at clouds, trying to convince himself that the grass in greener in the other field.
> No chemist wakes up and decides to call it “Steve” because Steve is a funny name and they think it’ll make their paper more approachable.
This happens every day. In every scientific field there is a technical name and then the name everyone remembers. Nobody will understand if I speak about ENSG00000164690, but if I say it's the Sonic HedgeHog gene then it starts to make sense, because funny names are memorable.
> awk (Aho, Weinberger, Kernighan; the creators’ initials)
I'd like to see anyone try to defend how using the creator's initials in a tool name describe its function. Unless you researched the tool's history, there is no way to know that.
Yet another "why the tools I use are the best and the tools you use suck", with a weird focus on naming instead of function.
> No chemist wakes up and decides to call it “Steve” because Steve is a funny name and they think it’ll make their paper more approachable.
This happens every day. In every scientific field there is a technical name and then the name everyone remembers. Nobody will understand if I speak about ENSG00000164690, but if I say it's the Sonic HedgeHog gene then it starts to make sense, because funny names are memorable.
> awk (Aho, Weinberger, Kernighan; the creators’ initials)
I'd like to see anyone try to defend how using the creator's initials in a tool name describe its function. Unless you researched the tool's history, there is no way to know that.
Yet another "why the tools I use are the best and the tools you use suck", with a weird focus on naming instead of function.