Personally, I think we should respect the classics. Quite literary overwriting computer history (e.g, as far as search results are concerned) may not be the wisest thing to do.
back
1 comments
I think this is a pretty naive take to have here because it assumes that you cannot have two or more things/events/people with the same name but completely different details and history within the context of computer science while being useful.
I feel pretty confident in assuring you that FOCAL https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCAL_(programming_language), which first appeared 56 years ago is ever going to have to compete with this app in the language space. In fact as the link to the Wikipedia clairifies, there are other things named FOCAL other than the “Formulating On-line Calculations in Algebraic Language” programming language.
If this was another programming language and it didn’t explicitly callout its namesake I think I’d probably side with you here, but this isn’t a programming language and you implying that someone isn’t respecting the classics here is misguided at best. For example, If someone created an application called Java that helped you brew the perfect cup of coffee or maybe plan a trip to the island of Java, that certainly would not be something that is “not respecting the classics” and “overwriting computer history” for Java the programming language.
In general I agree we should strive to preserve history, especially in such a young field. However criticizing an application developer over their name choice where there is no actual conflict with the things that share its name is pedantry.
I still think, we should honor the very beginnings in the same space. Also, in the context of OP, most of these names were once protected by trademarks, some may be even still alive. (I guess, FOCAL is now IP owned by HP?)
E.g., I didn't like seeing Simula reused (probably one of the most influential programming languages, since it introduced OO), or LiveScript (the original name of JavaScript that was a functional synonym for many years). And, regarding FOCAL, you've to start a quite specific search, already, for this showing up in Google top ranks, and this won't become any better, when there are other products by this name in the IT space. Especially, since there won't be much new pages on this and Google prefers newer entries.
(Regarding Java, you are probably aware of the concept of product domains in trademarks? Clearly, a computer programming language and a computer application are in the same domain.)
And I don't think there is any fault with expressing a perceived conflict early on, as compared to when it's already an established product and the conflict really plays out.