Project name thoughts
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Alex Forencich
Feb 16, 2015, 9:48:27 PM2/16/15
to la...@googlegroups.com
I made a posting about our labpy effort on the EEVblog forum
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-future-of-python-based-instrument-control/),
hoping to get the attention of anyone interested in jumping in to the
discussion. I received a personal message with some interesting
thoughts on the project name that I think is worthy of discussion, so
I'm just going to throw this up here:
Regarding the new initiative and the name you select, a few thoughts:
The name might or might not turn out to be significant - but a good name could potentially help. Sometimes a name is just a name and people will learn what it represents; other times a name can help people see the path you intended. Naming is certainly worth a few cycles – so it might be worth tabling the name long enough to layout the vision and mission, and then see if the name does justice to the vision and mission.
A suggestion would be that the team think about not only what is the vision and mission for the new initiative but also consider how the new initiative compares and relates to adjacent initiatives. 1) What are the key adjacent initiatives? (This would seem to include Python itself plus the various instrument software platforms including everything from NI, Agilent/Keysight, and IEEE including VISA, SCPI, Matlab, etc., etc.) 2) What’s in it for all the manufacturers (including and beyond Agilent/Keysight) and their users? 3) What’s in it for the Python community and possibly the broader developer community? 4) What specifically will make the new initiative different and better in the near term (next ~2-3 years or so)? 5) What is the longer term view of how the new initiative will be adopted relative to the other adjacent platforms (including commercial product architectures, languages, libraries, standards, etc.)? Perhaps it would be good to make a few charts to map out and socialize among the team the answers to these questions.
In the process the team can look down the road and see what space you want to occupy both now and in the future, and then with that vision and mission in mind the team can select a name that reflects where you want to go, where you don’t intend to go, and leave room for co-opting other synergistic initiatives. (Is this for test equipment manufacturers, developers, and users? Labs? A broader realm of "instrument" and "device" manufacturers, developers, and users? The Internet of Things? Somewhere in between?)
Perhaps there is a meaningful distinction to be made between test equipment and “instruments” or "devices", or not? In any event, for example, if the purpose of the initiative is to improve the intersection between Python and test equipment I’d be careful about jettisoning the name Python. No doubt, Python is an excellent language and it’s here to stay for a long time. When you look up Python on the web you get definitions like:
“Python is an interpreted, object-oriented programming language similar to PERL, that has gained popularity because of its clear syntax and readability.” And we could probably add some additional desirable attributes to the definition of Python.
So, regarding the initiative, “LabPy” might or might not be the right name, but it says a lot in its name through the contraction of “Lab” and “Py”. Maybe “Lab” is too confining – but Py is, well, Python. It is a huge and great foundation and a very advanced starting point.
Then there is Lantz. What is the definition of Lantz? What does it mean and what does it convey and what is it’s future? Does Lantz give the initiative as much "brand recognition" leverage and as much runway in the direction you want to go as does Python and the connection to Python inferred by "LabPy"? As mentioned, sometimes a name doesn’t matter and sometimes it can help – but as Yogi Berra once said “unless you know where you are going you could wind up somewhere else.”
Net, net: It looks like there is some strong support on the team for Lantz and maybe it’s the right way to go, but before you go too far with names, plans, and coding I’d layout the vision and mission. In the process it would be good to also layout the adjacent platforms and forces in the market and explain how the new initiative either successfully competes with those alternative initiatives, or adds value to and potentially co-opts those alternative initiatives, or co-exists with those alternative initiatives. After defining your vision and mission and your strategic positioning with pretty good clarity then revisit the name to make sure it properly signals your intentions.
Just some thoughts.
What do you guys think?
Alex Forencich
(http://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/the-future-of-python-based-instrument-control/),
hoping to get the attention of anyone interested in jumping in to the
discussion. I received a personal message with some interesting
thoughts on the project name that I think is worthy of discussion, so
I'm just going to throw this up here:
Regarding the new initiative and the name you select, a few thoughts:
The name might or might not turn out to be significant - but a good name could potentially help. Sometimes a name is just a name and people will learn what it represents; other times a name can help people see the path you intended. Naming is certainly worth a few cycles – so it might be worth tabling the name long enough to layout the vision and mission, and then see if the name does justice to the vision and mission.
A suggestion would be that the team think about not only what is the vision and mission for the new initiative but also consider how the new initiative compares and relates to adjacent initiatives. 1) What are the key adjacent initiatives? (This would seem to include Python itself plus the various instrument software platforms including everything from NI, Agilent/Keysight, and IEEE including VISA, SCPI, Matlab, etc., etc.) 2) What’s in it for all the manufacturers (including and beyond Agilent/Keysight) and their users? 3) What’s in it for the Python community and possibly the broader developer community? 4) What specifically will make the new initiative different and better in the near term (next ~2-3 years or so)? 5) What is the longer term view of how the new initiative will be adopted relative to the other adjacent platforms (including commercial product architectures, languages, libraries, standards, etc.)? Perhaps it would be good to make a few charts to map out and socialize among the team the answers to these questions.
In the process the team can look down the road and see what space you want to occupy both now and in the future, and then with that vision and mission in mind the team can select a name that reflects where you want to go, where you don’t intend to go, and leave room for co-opting other synergistic initiatives. (Is this for test equipment manufacturers, developers, and users? Labs? A broader realm of "instrument" and "device" manufacturers, developers, and users? The Internet of Things? Somewhere in between?)
Perhaps there is a meaningful distinction to be made between test equipment and “instruments” or "devices", or not? In any event, for example, if the purpose of the initiative is to improve the intersection between Python and test equipment I’d be careful about jettisoning the name Python. No doubt, Python is an excellent language and it’s here to stay for a long time. When you look up Python on the web you get definitions like:
“Python is an interpreted, object-oriented programming language similar to PERL, that has gained popularity because of its clear syntax and readability.” And we could probably add some additional desirable attributes to the definition of Python.
So, regarding the initiative, “LabPy” might or might not be the right name, but it says a lot in its name through the contraction of “Lab” and “Py”. Maybe “Lab” is too confining – but Py is, well, Python. It is a huge and great foundation and a very advanced starting point.
Then there is Lantz. What is the definition of Lantz? What does it mean and what does it convey and what is it’s future? Does Lantz give the initiative as much "brand recognition" leverage and as much runway in the direction you want to go as does Python and the connection to Python inferred by "LabPy"? As mentioned, sometimes a name doesn’t matter and sometimes it can help – but as Yogi Berra once said “unless you know where you are going you could wind up somewhere else.”
Net, net: It looks like there is some strong support on the team for Lantz and maybe it’s the right way to go, but before you go too far with names, plans, and coding I’d layout the vision and mission. In the process it would be good to also layout the adjacent platforms and forces in the market and explain how the new initiative either successfully competes with those alternative initiatives, or adds value to and potentially co-opts those alternative initiatives, or co-exists with those alternative initiatives. After defining your vision and mission and your strategic positioning with pretty good clarity then revisit the name to make sure it properly signals your intentions.
Just some thoughts.
What do you guys think?
Alex Forencich
Hernan Grecco
Feb 17, 2015, 1:31:19 AM2/17/15
to Alex Forencich, la...@googlegroups.com
Hi Alex,
Most of us have written in the docs of our projects why we started them and what we expect them to be. I have read them and I think we are roughly on the same page. Moreover, in addition to what is written I have seen how people, like MatthieuDartiailh and others joining the discussions, work in open source projects. That is why we started LabPy: because we saw that we have a common goal and we think that we can work together.
With this I am not saying that discussions like these are off the table. On the contrary we should have them. But I think our history already shows us some of the answers to your questions. We now need to build a common history and answer the rest of these questions and their details as we go.
Regarding the name, I think that many times is the other way around. Consider django, jinja2, nose, beautifulsoup, pillow, and flask. Most of the names are absolutely unrelated to what they do or they are connected through some weird chain of thoughts. But, these are some of the most dowloaded packages in the Python ecosystem, recognised by everybody in the community as leaders in their fields. They have established a name! We are on the same path.
best,
Hernán
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LabPy: Instrumentation in Python" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to labpy+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to la...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/labpy/54E2ABF5.4010309%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Matthieu Dartiailh
Feb 17, 2015, 3:48:54 AM2/17/15
to la...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
I think I agree with Hernan : we know why we started our own projects and why we now chose to team up. However positioning ourselves, at the time being, on question such as what do we want to do in three years seem a quite long jump (I will have finished my PhD by that time and I am not sure what I will do next) when we have not yet started. Those questions are important but I would really like to see what we can do in term of code before thinking too big.
One nice thing, about the name lantz is that we will be able to fit in anything the project might develop in, and as Hernan underlined it won't be the first Python project with a slightly cryptic name.
Best
Matthieu
I think I agree with Hernan : we know why we started our own projects and why we now chose to team up. However positioning ourselves, at the time being, on question such as what do we want to do in three years seem a quite long jump (I will have finished my PhD by that time and I am not sure what I will do next) when we have not yet started. Those questions are important but I would really like to see what we can do in term of code before thinking too big.
One nice thing, about the name lantz is that we will be able to fit in anything the project might develop in, and as Hernan underlined it won't be the first Python project with a slightly cryptic name.
Best
Matthieu
Matthieu Dartiailh
Feb 17, 2015, 4:28:57 AM2/17/15
to la...@googlegroups.com
I also noticed you mentioned slave in your blog post but p3trus did not join. Do you think we should invite him even if he did not ask to be part of Labpy ?
Matthieu
Alex Forencich
Feb 17, 2015, 1:27:26 PM2/17/15
to la...@googlegroups.com
I thought he did join; he was active in our discussions on the
python-ivi issue. It also might be a good idea to contact the folks
behind instrumentkit.
Alex Forencich
Alex Forencich
On 02/17/2015 01:28 AM, Matthieu
Dartiailh wrote:
I also noticed you mentioned slave in your blog post but p3trus did not join. Do you think we should invite him even if he did not ask to be part of Labpy ?
Matthieu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LabPy: Instrumentation in Python" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to labpy+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to la...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/labpy/CA%2BVfOfFT33Auo8PNLMWTAktcyuuTxEYVEVEFuLOWz5uAyo7nZQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages