Designing DFPL – The Name

Without hard evidence, it’s hard to say how much a language’s name matters, at least beyond basic Googleability.

Marketing has an effect on any kind of product, and programming languages are no exception.  Some names convey their different from other well-known languages, like C++ (an extension of C) or TypeScript (JavaScript but with a type system).  Java, Go, Python, and Ruby, on the other hand, are short, memorable words with neutral or positive connotations.  Bonus points for names that carry a family of associated words, e.g. Ruby and Gem.

Since our language is more of a synthesis of good ideas than a modification to an existing language, a short positive word seems to be the right strategy.

Crux is the first name we tried, though neither of us is thrilled with it.  We briefly tried the name Sneak, but everyone hated it.  Fig is short, neutral-to-positive, but nobody seemed excited by that name either.

Do you have suggestions?

The name affects the file extension, which ought to be short.  (Or am I the only one perpetually annoyed by the horizontal real estate consumed by .java and .coffee?)

4 thoughts on “Designing DFPL – The Name”

  1. Maybe name it after a scientist/mathetician, like Pascal or Haskell was? Maybe Euclid or Newton?

    When I name things I like to combine two words, one descriptive in some way (maybe mostly just whimsy), and one thing better rooted in the task. Like TurboJSON. OS devs seem to share that idea (NewOS, NetBSD). I can think of a couple languages that use the same approach (like Erlang).

    …or just be a jerk and call it something like Newlang. That has the advantage of having basically no google hits (yet).

  2. Just FYI, Euclid has been used a a name for a programming language at least once before. As for Newton, well there was NewtonScript, I believe.
    How about “Della”? Then you could also abuse the file extension .dll! :-)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *