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.

Any use of Simple is not a standard: it's just what people do instead of choosing a good name. Don't follow what other people do.

Every peice of software should have as its goal that it will be easy to use. That your goal is also that doesn't really mean anything.

Furthermore, any simplification always happens in some direction. To make things simple, you loose out on something else. Simply tagging "Simple" onto the end of a name doesn't tell the user in which direction you simplified things or which things they can't do anymore.

As I mentioned before, the modules list (@perl.org) is a good place to discuss names (as well as watch other discussions for your naming edification).

Good luck :)

--
brian d foy <brian@stonehenge.com>