[soulofmischief]

People like you make me want to code only in Brainfuck.

This sort of gatekeeping over programming culture and aesthetic is only causing the community to further splinter between people with sticks up their asses and people who just want to have fun and enjoy life.

[AntonCTO]

I don't see the limits in your ignorance. Bad names doesn't have anything in common with programming culture or aesthetic.

[soulofmischief]

The notion of a "bad name" is evidence of aesthetic gatekeeping.

You can sometimes say something is objectively bad: You shouldn't name your class `Car` if it models a boat. It's unrelated.

However to argue about "small" vs "smol" is a matter of pedantry. And it's further trivialized by the fact that "smol" is part of a well-established lexicon of a large demographic. Eventually you'll see it in Merriam-Webster. But if the argument is "it must be in Merriam-Webster", that's textbook gatekeeping.

[Volundr]

TIL I have a stick up my ass. I'm US born and didn't know what smol was until today so I'm not sure I buy the "large demographic", but it's always possible I'm out of touch.

Personally yeah I think it's better as an alias. I'm actually all for having fun with programming, but if you want your product to be useful you have to consider your audience. I'm much more likely to stick a joke name on an internal facing function, where I've got a strong reason to believe that everyone who sees it will be in on the joke. Or a piece of software that is itself for fun. Something that's meant for actually getting work done should generally not use naming that gets in the way of that.

> The notion of a "bad name" is evidence of aesthetic gatekeeping.

I mean that's objectively not true. You even provide an example in your next paragraph of a bad name. Another would be taking using md5s of descriptive names and using that. I mean md5 is broken and reversing it is fun and nerdy right?

When talking function names and program arguments, names which convey their purpose are better than those that don't. It's not gatekeeping, it's designing effective interfaces.

[soulofmischief]

Not knowing some internet slang doesn't mean there is a stick up your ass.

Having your own aesthetic preferences doesn't mean there is a stick up your ass.

But, if you were to claim, as others have, that this is an affront to programmer etiquette, that this product has a mandate to change it, then you might.

>> Something that's meant for actually getting work done should generally not use naming that gets in the way of that.

Like this. The case that "smol" is getting in the way of getting work done is just silly. No one is shoving their culture down your throat, but if you like Deno then you should be ready to also accept the culture established by its developers and not demand that one word be used over another of similar meaning, after it's established. There are other options out there for people who absolutely cannot be near and nonsense while working.

>> You even provide an example in your next paragraph of a bad name.

I established the difference between a pedantic situation and a genuinely unrelated name. This is nuance that most software developers are able to grasp.

>> When talking function names and program arguments, names which convey their purpose are better than those that don't. It's not gatekeeping, it's designing effective interfaces

`--smol` does this. It just happens to not be as well-known a word, but it is in fact an established part of the lexicon of an entire culture. That culture produced Deno, and being encouraging and accepting of these difference makes our little nerd corner of the internet just a bit cooler and more culturally diverse.

There is absolutely nothing from stopping anyone from joining the Deno collaborative process and creating a GitHub issue that requests a change. But if the maintainers find they prefer `smol`, it should end there and not become a constant struggle brought on by non-maintainers. And seeing as how it's been brought into the engine already, that is a sign that a consensus has already been reached at least once.