"Python" is not a good name, should rename to "Athon"

[Chris Mellon]

On Dec 3, 2007 4:26 PM, Russ P. <Russ.Paielli at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2:12 pm, "Chris Mellon" <arka... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 3, 2007 4:02 PM, Russ P. <Russ.Paie... at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 3, 1:47 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers
> > > <bdesth.quelquech... at free.quelquepart.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > > Bullshit. Nowadays, anyone serious (since you seem to worry quite a lot
> > > > about "being serious") about IT knows what Python is and who uses it.
> > > > Heck, even MSVS now has support for Python and there's an official CLR
> > > > port of it. Can't get much more "serious" (lol), isn't it ?
> >
> > > Not so. I know professional programmers and computer scientists with
> > > PhDs who have barely heard of Python and who assumed it was something
> > > roughly like Basic -- until I explained that it is a "serious"
> > > language that can be used for serious work. Then there are the
> > > managers ... who tend to prefer serious names. Sometimes they can see
> > > past a joke of a name ... and sometimes they can't.
> >
> > The vast majority of languages in use today have "joke" names.
> > Languages with "serious" names are pretty much limited to the
> > humorless environments of military and government contracting.
> >
> > There's not a single competent manager out there who'll dismiss Python
> > just because it's called Python. The fact that incompetent managers
> > exists does not change that fact, They won't be able to create good
> > software no matter what language they choose, so there's no particular
> > reason to cater to them.
> >
> > Also, you yourself are starting to emit spikes on the trollmeter, as
> > does anyone who blathers about how "serious" we need to be in order to
> > ingrate ourselves with hypothetical gray faced bureaucrats.
>
>
> Look what's going on here, folks. The OP *dared *to suggest that
> perhaps the name of Python could be changed in the next major release.
> I said it's a long shot, but I think its worth considering. And what
> do I get in return. Some reasonable replies, but mostly people who
> assert that the idea is absoutely absurd and completely without merit.
>
> You'd think the OP had suggested that God's name be changed to dog.
> Open your minds and let in some fresh air, folks. The name of a snake
> is not sacred ... for crying out loud! Try to think "outside the box"
> for a few seconds if you can. Yes, it frightening at first, but you
> can overcome the fear.
>


I do think the idea is absolutely absurd and without merit. That
doesn't mean that I think the current name is some sort of sacred cow
(if I may mix metaphors).

People who claim that everyone would agree with them if they'd only
open their minds or think out of the box are worth more than a few
points on the trollmeter. Consequentially, this will be (my) last post
on the subject, although apparently I have already been trolled.