Name?

[nelsonic]

@Danwhy / @Cleop / @SimonLab / @RobStallion if you have any ideas/suggestions for what to call this project (and resulting Hex.pm package) please share! ✨
For me it's a trade-off between something short/concise and easy to remember
vs. a more verbose name that describes exactly what the package does.

[Danwhy]

I've used Alog as the name of the app for now (#3), but it should be easy to change if we come up with something better

[RobStallion]

Personally I prefer the longer more descriptive names so for me I would like something like ex_append_only_log. Here is a list of my thoughts

(all _'s can be removed/replaced)
ex_append_only_log
ex_append_only
ex_append_log
ex_log
ex_log_db
ex_db_log

Here are some that I crowdsourced (from non techies)

dwata (dwyl + data) or dwayta (the way to (store data))
dwylappend
dwylstore
logbase
AOL (append only log (although I thought this was funny I did think maybe something like aol_db or ex_aol could be good))
log_in - My personal favourite crowdsourced one (the I and N are initials 😂)

[nelsonic]

@RobStallion thank you for sharing these name suggestions. ❤️
I tend to agree that a more descriptive name is good for the Hex.pm package name. 🥇

I feel that in order to be "beginner friendly", the person reading the mix.exs file should know immediately what a package does without having to "google it" ... 🔍

This was one of my biggest gripes in Ruby/Rails-land ... every Gem name is "insider knowledge"
and to be a successful "rubyist" you need to earn the knowledge of the obscure package names!
for the uninitiated, what do you think Gems called "pony", "crack", "whiskey" or "tranny" do...? 😕
see: https://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/mcmyp/10_poorly_chosen_ruby_gem_names 🙄

The question is: can we have it "both ways"?
Can we use ecto_append_only_log (or whatever the consensus for "most descriptive" name is) as the Hex.pm package name and then in the Code still use Alog for brevity?

Or will this be "confusing" to people...?

If so, I would side with the longer name everywhere because most Apps will have a limited number of Schemas so the number of times the person writing the code will need to type the name will be fewer than ten in most cases! (anyone who complains that the name is "too long" is missing the point of writing software for other humans to read.) Most good text editors / IDEs will auto-complete the name after it's been typed once in the project ...

“Any fool can write code that a computer can understand.
Good programmers write code that humans can understand.”
~ Martin Fowler

I'm Happy to go with the "consensus" on this one, this is a good instance of "wisdom of the crowd" helping us to come up with something that will be welcoming to people ...

P.S. @Danwhy please continue with alog till we reach a decision on the longer name. Thanks!

[RobStallion]

The question is: can we have it "both ways"?
Can we use ecto_append_only_log (or whatever the consensus for "most descriptive" name is) as the Hex.pm package name and then in the Code still use Alog for brevity?

A user could use the as: syntax if they wanted to change the name to something more concise in their code. We could maybe put an example of that in the docs if we were worried about the name being too long. e.g. alias AppName.Ecto_append_only_log, as AOL.