Re: Re: PEAR_ErrorStack Quality

> The next time someone tells me that what I've said with careful > consideration is "highly stupid," with no response to anything I have > written, I'll be sure to listen carefully. That makes a load of sense. > > Did you read Aidan's messages? When he first posted a carefully > considered argument for changing the name, I responded with my reasoning > behind the name. Rather than debate intelligently, he resorted to > insults. That is not how you get your way with me. Maybe it works with > dumberer people. If you want to change my mind, you need to use a solid > argument based on reasoning. Hi Greg, You wrote: > There may be an initial time period where people are put off by the > name, but word of mouth will correct that (and seeing it in action), > just as any good program has found in the past. Sure, this is true, but why provide unnecessary barriers to the packages success? > Plus it might help to > remedy the PEAR stigma that already exists. I doubt this, the stigma that exists is propagated by people who enjoy having stigmas. They dislike PEAR because it's PEAR, not for any other reasonable reason. > Basically, I don't mind if a high quality package has "PEAR" in its > name, only if a low-quality one does. So, if PEAR_ErrorStack has flaws > in the code, I want to know about it. If it doesn't, then tell your > friends about it. This is where my comment came in. Obviously I should have thought more about my choice of language. > Are we going to underscore all good packages with PEAR_ then? > Sorry, but I think this is highly stupid. You're arguing that because it's good code, it's okay to have PEAR in the name. I'm saying: well, are you going to prefix all packages with good code? My point is your point is not a point. It's not an argument for keeping PEAR in the name. Now, if we get into the guts of it, why did you take such offence to such a meek statement. It does not criticise the author AT ALL. If you were offended, I am deeply apologetic. When ErrorStack was proposed, it was proposed as ErrorStack. There was a great deal of discussion about the name, and everyone was discussing how nifty the package was. Then, out of the blue (from my perspective), an email appears with "well everyone loves this package so we'll integrate it into the core and delete the proposal". Now, I was very, very new to PEAR then so there may have been a lot of discussion I was not privy to, however it seems that the name was not decided by common consensus. My point is this: I think we should seriously think about the choice of name for such an excellent package, and not put unnecessary barriers in the way of success. Kind Regards, Aidan