In many ways I agree with what you have to say. But I can see some arguments in favor of "Simple".
There seems to be a non-official standard usage of Simple, eg XML::Simple and Test::Simple. Simple has a specific meaning that a primary goal of the library is to be very easy to use.
A tool with a very specific function is easier to name than one that is generalized. Adding any specific qualifier or descrptive dilutes the generalized name. Sometimes Simple may be appropriate.
A very generalized tool that aims to solve the major problems in a given domain, while minimizing the learning curve probably should be called Foo::Simple.
Whether Simple was appropriate in my case is a moot point, since the name's already take. With the above in mind, I think I'll focus on how my library is different from other offerings and what the specific goals of the system are.
But, for now, I'm still drawing a blank.
TGI says moo
In reply to Re^2: Module Renaming Suggestions
by TGI
in thread Module Renaming Suggestions
by TGI
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |