On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 14:58:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Whatever it means, the answers there don't seem to jive with the thread discussing it. In particular, AliasTuple probably has the strongest reaction against it out of any of the choices which have been seriously considered, based principly on all of the problems that we've had in explaining to people what on earth a TypeTuple is. The fact that Tuple is in the name has caused quite a few problems. So, seeing it on the top is a bit surprising. Though I wonder how many of the participants in the thread have responded to that, since many seem to just be sick of the discussion. More folks have responded to the survey though than have participated in the thread though.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

The ones against a name are vocal in the thread, the ones who don't mind it or like it tend to not be as vocal. The thread is not a good representation of what people like.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 03:33:14PM +0000, Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 14:58:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >Whatever it means, the answers there don't seem to jive with the thread discussing it. In particular, AliasTuple probably has the strongest reaction against it out of any of the choices which have been seriously considered, based principly on all of the problems that we've had in explaining to people what on earth a TypeTuple is. The fact that Tuple is in the name has caused quite a few problems. So, seeing it on the top is a bit surprising. Though I wonder how many of the participants in the thread have responded to that, since many seem to just be sick of the discussion.  More folks have responded to the survey though than have participated in the thread though.
> >
> >- Jonathan M Davis
> 
> The ones against a name are vocal in the thread, the ones who don't mind it or like it tend to not be as vocal. The thread is not a good representation of what people like.

And there's also people like me, who have grown so sick and tired of
this endless bikeshedding (in spite of arriving at some sort of
"consensus" multiple times, only to be interrupted by Yet More
Proposals), that we simply don't even care to respond anymore, we just
want this thread to please just stop. At this point, even if we were to
name this thing AliasQwfdJskCmfpz, I would be OK with it, as long as
I don't see any more posts on this tiresome topic.

All of this energy could have been far more productively spent elsewhere -- like improving the docs, or fixing the flood of new bugs on Bugzilla where it has far more impact -- and yet here we are, prolonging this one with no end in sight.

Andrei/Walter should just step in and make the final call on whatever lousy name they wish (let's admit it, none of the names are any good, and you ain't gonna please everybody no matter what), and let's just move on.


T

-- 
your inconsistency is the only consistent thing about you! -- kd

On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 15:33:17 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> The ones against a name are vocal in the thread, the ones who don't mind it or like it tend to not be as vocal. The thread is not a good representation of what people like.

Neither is a superficial popularity contest a suitable indicator for good language design.

For example, there are substantial concerns regarding the teachability of names ending in "Tuple". While these are (by necessity) only backed by anecdotal evidence, several people made these observations when helping beginners. It would be foolish to ignore the experience we gained from the past in favor of an impromptu straw poll.

 — David

On 7/20/15 11:54 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Andrei/Walter should just step in and make the final call on whatever
> lousy name they wish (let's admit it, none of the names are any good,
> and you ain't gonna please everybody no matter what), and let's just
> move on.

That's what we did a few times in the past. It did help with limiting discussions and revisionist pull requests, but not as much as anyone would have liked.

It seems to me that subjecting new names to some community scrutiny before freezing them forever is a sensible thing to do. The difficulties are finding good definitions for "community" and "scrutiny". And "some" :o). From what I can tell:

* For any name considered, there is at least one person who strongly believes is an epically bad choice and presents vivid anecdotes, similes, and parallels with other languages and domains to support that opinion.

* For most names considered, there is at least one person who is a strong advocate and is convinced that's by far a better choice than all others.

* Whatever choice we make, there's a sort of atmosphere that a radically better name is just around the corner and we'll all regret having freezing it.

* There's a sort of Warhol effect in that naming discussions are massive, therefore they must be important, therefore they garner attention, therefore they get more massive.

I had vague hopes some clarity would emerge from opening up the process. Sadly this is one of those "welcome to the club" results. What I do hope happens is more appreciation of all involved of the difficulty of making decisions and judgment calls in matters in which there's no telling right from wrong. Please, please, please cut Walter and me some slack in the future.

I'll talk to him today in the hope we'll be able to put an end to this.


Andrei

On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 16:26:36 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 15:33:17 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> The ones against a name are vocal in the thread, the ones who don't mind it or like it tend to not be as vocal. The thread is not a good representation of what people like.
>
> Neither is a superficial popularity contest a suitable indicator for good language design.

Didn't really claim that, just wanted to point out why the most popular names might not be obvious from the thread. I didn't mean to imply that the most popular = the best.

> For example, there are substantial concerns regarding the teachability of names ending in "Tuple". While these are (by necessity) only bcked by anecdotal evidence, several people made these observations when helping beginners. It would be foolish to ignore the experience we gained from the past in favor of an impromptu straw poll.
>
>  — David

It's already been pointed out that there is no obvious good name, just less bad names. While the most popular name has problems, so do all the others. At least we know now what is the most popular and Walter and Andrei can take that into account, and hopefully make deciding the best name a bit easier.

All arguments have been repeated... Just let Walter and Andrei decide and end this...

On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 16:54:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/20/15 11:54 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Andrei/Walter should just step in and make the final call on whatever
>> lousy name they wish (let's admit it, none of the names are any good,
>> and you ain't gonna please everybody no matter what), and let's just
>> move on.
>
> That's what we did a few times in the past. It did help with limiting discussions and revisionist pull requests, but not as much as anyone would have liked.
>
> It seems to me that subjecting new names to some community scrutiny before freezing them forever is a sensible thing to do. The difficulties are finding good definitions for "community" and "scrutiny". And "some" :o). From what I can tell:
>
> * For any name considered, there is at least one person who strongly believes is an epically bad choice and presents vivid anecdotes, similes, and parallels with other languages and domains to support that opinion.
>
> * For most names considered, there is at least one person who is a strong advocate and is convinced that's by far a better choice than all others.
>
> * Whatever choice we make, there's a sort of atmosphere that a radically better name is just around the corner and we'll all regret having freezing it.
>
> * There's a sort of Warhol effect in that naming discussions are massive, therefore they must be important, therefore they garner attention, therefore they get more massive.
>
> I had vague hopes some clarity would emerge from opening up the process. Sadly this is one of those "welcome to the club" results. What I do hope happens is more appreciation of all involved of the difficulty of making decisions and judgment calls in matters in which there's no telling right from wrong. Please, please, please cut Walter and me some slack in the future.
>
> I'll talk to him today in the hope we'll be able to put an end to this.
>
>
> Andrei

Well, this time you did the exact reverse.

Consensus is reached, Andrei step in, we got 20 pages of bikesched to end up to square one, at which stage, Walter step in and put more coin into the jukebox.

Conclusion had been reached twice, and twice with the same name already. I feel like there is a kernel of people that just won't accept this, as the poll showed (I did not vote).

At some point, one have to accept that his proposal is not the one that will get in. My preference would go for Pack, then Splat, then Seq, but at this point I have to admit that the community does not share my taste. I expect others here to grow up a bit and accept that YOUR proposal is not gold platted, in fact, it is kind of shitty like all other proposal here. Deal with it.

Some of the proposals do not even make any sense. Come on, all people that got into this know how newcomer react to the Tuple name noticed the same reaction. Yet, there is a large crow of idiots (sorry if you are in that crowd, on that one you ARE an idiot) that will send that proposal in again and again. Anyone that proposed that name at this point should only be laughed at, as it is clearly the manifestation of someone that have not deal first hand with the problems of the historical name and is serving as a living example of Dunning Kruger.

Unless there is something significantly better then Seq, and that there is consensus on that fact it should be changed. I don't think any proposal, even the one I would prefer over Seq, match that criteria, and I don't think anything else honest here would either.

That is exhausting to come back here again and again just to argue the same point again and again. This must stop. Everybody else has better things to do.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 06:49:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:

> I expect others here to grow up a bit

> Yet, there is a large crow of idiots (sorry if you are in that crowd, on that one you ARE an idiot)

You trolling right now?

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 06:49:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Come on, all people that got into this know how newcomer react
> to the Tuple name noticed the same reaction.

No, that highly depends on the background of the newcomer, everyone I introduced D to , only found it confusing that it was named Type*.

Type* = A construct that powerful it can contain Type:s as well?

Whereas the intuitive meaning would be:

Type* = A construct that is limited to Type:s only.

Before this thread I didn't realize newcomers found the Tuple part confusing, I know that's the case now, but after viewing the poll, it seems to be a minority. But then again, how many newcomers would find Seq confusing, we will never know.

On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 08:00:40 UTC, Daniel N wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 July 2015 at 06:49:10 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Come on, all people that got into this know how newcomer react
>> to the Tuple name noticed the same reaction.
>
> No, that highly depends on the background of the newcomer, everyone I introduced D to , only found it confusing that it was named Type*.
>
> Type* = A construct that powerful it can contain Type:s as well?
>
> Whereas the intuitive meaning would be:
>
> Type* = A construct that is limited to Type:s only.
>
> Before this thread I didn't realize newcomers found the Tuple part confusing, I know that's the case now, but after viewing the poll, it seems to be a minority. But then again, how many newcomers would find Seq confusing, we will never know.

PS Ask yourself, how many of the new proposals contains *Type* ? Anyone was free to add such a proposal.

Even with our collective imagination, which spawned creative names such as OmniSplat?! Still exactly 0 of the new alternatives contained 'Type'. I ask again, which part of the name TypeTuple was bad?

On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 14:58:34 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, 20 July 2015 at 08:18:46 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> On Saturday, 18 July 2015 at 01:05:20 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>>> Here is a survey of all suggested names, please vote so we can end this with the best name...
>>>
>>> http://goo.gl/forms/qls1ZGDCho
>>
>> Small update, as of right now, there has been 45 responses to the survey, with AliasTuple in the lead.
>>
>> Top 3 average rankings:
>> AliasTuple   3.16
>> Aliases      2.82
>> AliasList    2.76
>
> Whatever it means, the answers there don't seem to jive with the thread discussing it. In particular, AliasTuple probably has the strongest reaction against it out of any of the choices which have been seriously considered, based principly on all of the problems that we've had in explaining to people what on earth a TypeTuple is. The fact that Tuple is in the name has caused quite a few problems. So, seeing it on the top is a bit surprising. Though I wonder how many of the participants in the thread have responded to that, since many seem to just be sick of the discussion. More folks have responded to the survey though than have participated in the thread though.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I suspect that many people, myself included, didn't have anything meaningful to add to the thread but still voted. Personally I didn't post because I didn't have a better idea for a name and I thought the proposed ones were all suboptimal.

Atila