[pmelendez]

> You know what is fun when it comes to work? Things that work, are named appropriately, are understandable, and people not needing trivialities

I don’t know I agree with this. Microsoft has taken the descriptive naming style all the way down to products. Not only names like Batch or Functions don’t add much value, but also it makes searching information about them much harder than “cute” names (such as Excel).

I also think we tend to overthink this too much. In the end, the significance of names is as high as choosing between tabs or spaces.

[formerly_proven]

This really seems to have started at Apple and has been copied by both Microsoft and Gnome. I don't have any UX expectations for MS [1], but in Gnome it's irritating because most Gnome applications don't display their real name anywhere in the UI any more, so you have to Google what the binary and package names are etc.

[1] I tried to open calculator on a Windows 10 box and it doesn't work any more, even launching calc.exe directly just gives a weird error message that "I need a new app for opening this ms-calculator:// link". Wat.

[andrelaszlo]

Haha, I am not picking sides but I recently saw a suggestion to move a service's DNS records from Cloud DNS to Cloud DNS. One was GCP and the other some smaller provider.

For the big cloud providers, I've definitely seen people struggle with the names. Is it Google Compute Engine or Google Cloud Engine? Which one is which of Google Cloud Run and Google Compute Engine? Amazon Route 53? Route 57? 35?

I guess the bigger the service the more creative name it should have?

[fragmede]

DNS runs on port 53, so it's easy to remember the name of AWS' DNS service.

[cfuendev]

> Microsoft has taken the descriptive naming style all the way down to products

May be more on the "Developer Products" side, but this is exactly how I feel about PowerShell cmdlets... Did PowerShell's developer team dislike Linux's software/package/scripting ecosystem so much that they had to make two-word long capitalized command names a good practice?

[surement]

> Not only names like Batch or Functions don’t add much value

overly vague names have the same problems cute names have, and you generally see the same type of people using them (those who think software is "hard to change"–you're thinking of hardware!)

countless codebases have something called "entity" some geezer wrote a million years ago that the only reason it hasn't been deleted is that it's so generic everything depends on it

code that's hard to change or delete is bad code