manual: Why use 'maude' as the example program name?

[Kang-Che Sung]

In Automake manual, I see several places where it uses "maude" or "mumble"
as
example name of program, even in the Indices section. And I really wonder
one
thing: Why these obscure name had been chosen, instead of having a name like
"myprog", "foo" or "fooprog" that is more obvious as a placeholder?

This had troubled me when I need to look up the meanings of Automake
variables
frequently in order to write a debug an Automake file. And I hope the
keywords can be indexed in a better way.

[Tom Tromey]

Kang-Che> And I really wonder one thing: Why these obscure name had been
Kang-Che> chosen, instead of having a name like "myprog", "foo" or
Kang-Che> "fooprog" that is more obvious as a placeholder?

It's easily distinguished from any ordinary text and I have a dislike of
"foo" as an example. Also Maude was the name of my dog.

Kang-Che> This had troubled me when I need to look up the meanings of
Kang-Che> Automake variables frequently in order to write a debug an
Kang-Che> Automake file. And I hope the keywords can be indexed in a
Kang-Che> better way.

IMO the index should refer to definitions of primaries but not the names
used in examples.

Tom

[Jonas Thiem]

Post by Tom Tromey
Kang-Che> And I really wonder one thing: Why these obscure name had been
Kang-Che> chosen, instead of having a name like "myprog", "foo" or
Kang-Che> "fooprog" that is more obvious as a placeholder?
It's easily distinguished from any ordinary text and I have a dislike of
"foo" as an example. Also Maude was the name of my dog.

Disclaimer: I haven't read this part of the docs myself. But for what
it's worth, I think Maude looks a bit like a misspelling of Make and
doesn't stick out that well, compared to "exampleprog" or something.
Also, I personally would suggest it's good if it's obvious from the name
what it is, and what it's not. (e.g. Maude could be mistaken as a
reference to an actual tool or some technical term the reader might
think they have missed) Not saying it needs to be changed, just throwing
in another impression.

Regards,
Jonas Thiem

[Tom Tromey]

Jonas> Disclaimer: I haven't read this part of the docs myself. But for what
Jonas> it's worth, I think Maude looks a bit like a misspelling of Make and
Jonas> doesn't stick out that well, compared to "exampleprog" or something.

One such section starts:

In the list below, we use the name “maude” to refer to the program or
library. In your ‘Makefile.am’ you would replace this with the
canonical name of your program. This list also refers to “maude” as a
program, but in general the same rules apply for both static and dynamic
libraries; the documentation below notes situations where programs and
libraries differ.

I guess my view is that in all the years of Automake, if we're first
hearing about it now, then it probably isn't really that confusing.
Also AFAICT it isn't mentioned on stack overflow.

Tom

[Mathieu Lirzin]

Post by Tom Tromey
Jonas> Disclaimer: I haven't read this part of the docs myself. But for what
Jonas> it's worth, I think Maude looks a bit like a misspelling of Make and
Jonas> doesn't stick out that well, compared to "exampleprog" or something.
In the list below, we use the name “maude” to refer to the program or
library. In your ‘Makefile.am’ you would replace this with the
canonical name of your program. This list also refers to “maude” as a
program, but in general the same rules apply for both static and dynamic
libraries; the documentation below notes situations where programs and
libraries differ.

FWIW, I think using “maude” with the above explanation is clear enough.

[Bob Friesenhahn]

I think that we should have respect for the author's dog.
Disrespecting the author's dog is not far from disrespecting the
author.

Bob

[Tom Tromey]

Bob> I think that we should have respect for the author's
Bob> dog. Disrespecting the author's dog is not far from disrespecting the
Bob> author.

Haha, well my memory of my dog is why I'd rather keep the text. It's
fine to disrespect me, but not Maude -- she was great & hilarious :-)

Tom

[Gavin Smith]

Post by Jonas Thiem
Disclaimer: I haven't read this part of the docs myself. But for what
it's worth, I think Maude looks a bit like a misspelling of Make and
doesn't stick out that well, compared to "exampleprog" or something.
Also, I personally would suggest it's good if it's obvious from the name
what it is, and what it's not. (e.g. Maude could be mistaken as a
reference to an actual tool or some technical term the reader might
think they have missed) Not saying it needs to be changed, just throwing
in another impression.

I changed it from "maude" to "program" in my (unofficial) attempt at
editing the automake manual:
http://buildsystem-manual.sourceforge.net/Program-and-Library-Variables.html#Program-and-Library-Variables
I've no current plans to push this rewrite further but maybe someone
will want to use some parts of it. One of my goals was to remove any
sense of personality from the documentation so that it was as boring
as possible, in order to focus on the subject without any
distractions.

[NightStrike]

Post by Gavin Smith

Post by Jonas Thiem
Disclaimer: I haven't read this part of the docs myself. But for what
it's worth, I think Maude looks a bit like a misspelling of Make and
doesn't stick out that well, compared to "exampleprog" or something.
Also, I personally would suggest it's good if it's obvious from the name
what it is, and what it's not. (e.g. Maude could be mistaken as a
reference to an actual tool or some technical term the reader might
think they have missed) Not saying it needs to be changed, just throwing
in another impression.

I changed it from "maude" to "program" in my (unofficial) attempt at
http://buildsystem-manual.sourceforge.net/Program-and-
Library-Variables.html#Program-and-Library-Variables
I've no current plans to push this rewrite further but maybe someone
will want to use some parts of it. One of my goals was to remove any
sense of personality from the documentation so that it was as boring
as possible, in order to focus on the subject without any
distractions.

I actually found that the lighthearted nature of the automake manual makes
it easier to digest and understand what is otherwise overly dry material.