Names have power. Shamanic primitives guard their true names -- give me your name and you give me power over you. In the ether, your name is your only identity. Give away your name and you give away yourself. No cause, issue, or crusade has a follower until it has a name. A good name evokes images, emotions. A well-named issue becomes uncontestable. (Who is really
opposed to "family values", anyway?)
Naming things well may be one of the hardest jobs in design. Somebody once said that object-oriented design was about creating the language that you would use to solve the problem. Start with the language (a collection of names, and rules about how to assemble the names), then deal with the problem.
I'm struggling with naming something right now. I can sense what it is. There is a real thing there. I can feel it. I need to define it, give it boundaries. When I can name it, I will give it life.
| Find the line, find the shape Through the grain Find the outline, things will Tell you their name --Susanne Vega |
Pah. That's damn close to gibberish.
Let's try analogy and contrast:
| Fluid | Not fluid |
| Publish-subscribe messaging | Flat file integration |
| Typeless languages | Strongly-typed languages |
| Tuple-spaces | Relational databases |
| eXtreme Programming | SEI CMM Level 5 |
| Cross-functional teams | Silos |
| Whiteboard task lists | GANTT charts |
| Web | Client-server |
| 20-person startup | The same company at 150 people |
Does that help? The items on the left share some essential, underlying attributes. The things on the right lack those attributes; they embody different values. (I don't like the semiotics of "fluid". Call that a working title, not a true name. Besides, the natural opposites of "fluid" would be "solid" or "concrete". These are both positively-connoted terms.)
So what can I name this quality? Is there really something essential there, or is this just reflecting nothing more than the way I like to work?

<< Home