Re: [OT] "Rose?!?" [was: "Re: Perl ORM comparison (Class::DBI vs. DBIx::Class vs. Rose::DB::Object)"]

in reply to [OT] "Rose?!?" [was: "Re: Perl ORM comparison (Class::DBI vs. DBIx::Class vs. Rose::DB::Object)"]
in thread Perl ORM comparison (Class::DBI vs. DBIx::Class vs. Rose::DB::Object)

It's short, generic, hard to misspell or mispronounce, has many positive connotations, and wasn't taken. No acronyms, no backronyms.

(As an aside, I considered naming my daughter (born many years after Rose:: modules hit CPAN) Rose just so I could have the following conversation. Person: "Aw, you named your modules after your daughter! How sweet!" Me: "Actually, I named my daughter after my Perl modules." (Instant geek points++) Alas, my wife was not as enamored with the idea... ;)

Comment on Re: [OT] "Rose?!?" [was: "Re: Perl ORM comparison (Class::DBI vs. DBIx::Class vs. Rose::DB::Object)"]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: [OT] "Rose?!?" [was: "Re: Perl ORM comparison (Class::DBI vs. DBIx::Class vs. Rose::DB::Object)"] by Arunbear (Prior) on Aug 05, 2008 at 17:15 UTC
The name isn't taken in Perl land, but there is a software design tool called Rose originally produced by Rational Machines in 1992, now owned by IBM.	[reply]
Re^3: [OT] "Rose?!?" [was: "Re: Perl ORM comparison (Class::DBI vs. DBIx::Class vs. Rose::DB::Object)"] by siracusa (Friar) on Aug 06, 2008 at 14:32 UTC
Yes, every name is taken in some context. (Also, I usually hear that product fully-qualified: Rational Rose.) What can you do...	[reply]

In Section Meditations