> On Feb 10, 2021, at 6:05 AM, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 14:55, Jeff Garland
> <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I have a very different target audience
>>> for colony - programmers.
>>
>> See above, a large set of programmers have degrees in computer science. Even self taught programmers will find a wealth of information on stack, queue, list and other basic data structures. Colony has no precedent in literature beyond Matt’s writing.
>
> Perhaps that's because there is no precedent for it under any name.

Correct.

>
>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 10:21, Richard Hodges via Lib-Ext
>>> <lib-ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> Colony is a bad name for this container on its own merits
>>>
>>> ..and those merits on which it's a bad name are..?
>>>
>>> This is what makes these discussions a waste of time. Claims without
>>> rationale, that is.
>>
>> Please reread my mail. 1) no precedence in computer science literature (novel), 2) a class of algorithms that have ‘colony’ in the name (confusing), and 3) based on a bad analogy (at least for me and several others). That’s rationale. The followup was really +1 to point #3.
>
> I have no way of knowing whether that quoted dangling reference refers
> to your mail, something else,
> or to nothing in particular. That's where the lack of rationale comes in.

Ok — to others then, fine. Response to your criticism of my rationale coming next.
>
>> All my suggestions were at least motivated with some logic. Based on the actual properties of the container that matter to users. The logic is there to be discussed. Some others may have suggested better — tbd.
>
> Read the thread further. :P
>

I have read the thread further. I just wanted to separate the responses ‘about the merits’ of the discussion, from ’the discussion’.

Jeff