Re: CALL FOR DISCUSSION: Formation of comp.object-oriented

[eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Edward Berard)]

The term "object-oriented" has been with us since Alan Kay coined it
around 1970. It is so frequently used, and recognized, that the
double-O (i.e., "OO") can even be recognized in acronyms, e.g.,
OOPSLA, ECOOP, OODBMS, OOP, and JOOP.

It is my feeling that the name of a newsgroup should be as short as
possible, while at the same time providing as much information as
possible. This helps to attract new readers, and makes the name easy
to remember. However, the name should not mislead, or confuse those
who see it for the first time.

I am also concerned about the length of a name which might not be
handled correctly by some systems. An earlier poster suggested that a
maximum length should be 14 characters.

I have some suggestions:

	- comp.oo : This is for the people who hate to type. It may be
	  too short to attract the attention of new readers.

	- comp.obj-oriented : This would be hard to mistake. However,
	  it is not the easiest name to remember.

	- comp.object : This was suggested by an earlier poster.
	  Without a second "o", it may be mistaken for a components
	  newsgroup, or a discussion of "object code."

I can live with any of the above.

				-- Ed Berard
				   (301) 353-9652