Re: why not

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <9rsidr$kio$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says...
>I used to have an associate who spent large amounts of time coming up with
>acronyms for things on the project. Some of them were quite clever, but you
>had to wonder about the amount of time consumed in coming up with them & the
>tendency to come up with such twisted collections of words that it would
>obfuscate the original idea. I got the feeling that his partitioning of a
>system into subsystems was driven more by the fact that he could create a
>clever acronym out of it than because it represented some logical breakdown
>of the project. (Imagine block diagrams with "GRAPES" ---> "PRESS" --->
>"WINE" kinds of relationships.)

On my first project we had a standard where every package name had to start with
a 4 letter ID, the first letter of which had to be the letter desginating which
subproject the file belonged to. Everyone thought this was really stupid, and
the common idiom was to immdediately rename the packages after "with"ing them to
remove the wart. Since there wansn't much respect for the facility ID, of course
everyone had fun with them. My group's designator was "C", so of course I came
up with packages that started with "CAPE" and "COWS". :-)

I had a friend in anther group whose designator was "W". Over a few beers one
day we decided to name the "interface packages" we had to create with each other
"CANT_Interface" and "WONT_Interface". :-)

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.