---
id: 2025-12-17T12:32:00-0500
title: 2025-12-17 12:32:??
tags:
  - topic/ambiguity
daily: "[[2025-12-17]]"
---
# 2025-12-17 12:32:??

A while ago I heard a minor coding influencer lament
that frameworks, packages, and tools
often have ridiculous sounding names[^2]
when, he suggests, they ought to just be called what they do.

[^2]: `bubble-tea` and `ratatui`
    (libraries for creating CLI's) come to my mind

Unfortunately some people and organizations agree with him,
giving us terms which mean both something very general
and something very specific.[^3]

[^3]: [[project-management-tm|"Project Management"]]
    was my go to example, but weak
    because it's difficult for me to articulate
    the difference from construction project management
    especially to someone unfamiliar with the specifics of either.

For lack of a better term I've been thinking of this as an SEO problem,
but the bigger problem is that it invites [[category-mistake]],
whereby the ignorant listener associates traits unique to the example
to all things that the name could describe.

I thought to finally write about this problem
while researching [[lighting-controls#Protocols|lighting control protocols]].
The two most dominant examples:

* [[lighting-controls#^dali|"Digital Addressable Lighting Interface (DALI)"]]
* [[lighting-controls#^dmx|"Digital Multiplex (DMX)"]]

while notably different in topology,
could both be described accurately with the other's name.

> It is possible to avoid this problem
> without the effort necessary to come up with a clever name.
> Just stick an arbitrary, but reasonably unique word
> in front of the generic description.
> A person's name ("John's Digital Addressable Lighting Interface (JDALI)")
> or your favorite animal ("Heron Digital Multiplex (HDMX)") are good options.
