[globular-toast]

I worked for a while in a big traditional corporation. My team was a bit like a little enclave inside the larger organisation. They knew us because we had our top shirt buttons undone and wore brown shoes instead of black. When we interacted with the traditional suits the worst we got were chuckles and eye rolls as we said names like "Python", "GIMP" and "Cockroach" instead of the things they knew about like SAS and Oracle. We never met any resistance due to naming or anything like that. But I still ended up leaving before too long because it was too difficult and slow to make real change and progress.

So if you work for somewhere even worse than that, just leave!

[mgdev]

I know a little about getting large companies to use unknown and "risky" tech. I've done it a number of times (including one I'm especially proud[0] of, and that is relevant given the Clojure connection), and built more than one billion-dollar product doing so.

Names have incredible power, positive or negative, when something is in its infancy.

At the start, when it's just you, and maybe one other person, and maybe one more than that... and your entire effort is just a wisp of what it could one day be, all it takes is some random fly-by-night architect (or even project manager) walking by, hearing the name, and saying, "No way am I letting something called jank touch this project," and shutting it down. The ol' swoop-and-poop, but for incredibly understandable reasons: corporate drones are superstitious.

Now... if, as a matter of culture building, you're intentionally leaning into the "jank" name, that's different. Because names have incredible power. So if you're cobbling together a cadre of crack hackers, "jank" might be exactly what you need to telegraph exactly the ethos you want to manifest.

But if you're just looking for a memorable name to slap on something you hope will actually get traction in any production capacity, I'd just ask that Jeaye consider if the potential benefits outweigh the risks.

[0]: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/building-cloud-choosing-lisp-...

[Capricorn2481]

What you're describing is absolutely true, and I've seen it, but I agree with the commenter that it's a good litmus test for shit organizations. I have learned that it doesn't matter if the name is changed to something better, I will still be working for people that think with their ass, and therefore, half my life will be annoying.

Rust also has negative connotations, arguably worse connotations. Seems to do fine, and I wouldn't want it renamed because a PM is on a power trip.

> but for incredibly understandable reasons: corporate drones are superstitious

Understandable in the sense that I get why a child would do this, not an adult who is supposed to know what they're managing. Unfortunately, the business world pretends "Project Manager" can be slotted into any domain. Now my days are spent correcting the AI notetaker of a guy who is paid 6 figures.

[mgdev]

You are right, it is a good litmus test.

I suppose it depends on which battle you’re choosing to fight.

When I enter such orgs, I join to fix the org. And I want every tool at my disposal to do it.

I love turnarounds. But they require careful management of energy. So if I have an opportunity to convince someone to change a name now, it saves me a bunch of energy later.

FWIW, I learned this while getting both React and Clojure approved for internal use at a Fortune 100 co. Took me weeks. Both had problematic licensing issues, both of which could have been avoided if the authors had spent 10 extra minutes clarifying a few small things a few years before.