[clean-list] Rebranding Clean

Wed Feb 6 16:35:06 MET 2008

Well, if you google ("Clean" +"functional programming") OR "Concurrent Clean" you get 77.000 hits as opposed to 1.150.000 when I google ("Clean" +"programming language") OR "Concurrent Clean"
So I find even 4 times as many hits with the same query. Anyway, the latter query could catch quite a lot of false positives. For instance, I have read articles about Java where Java was called a clean programming language.

Regards Erik Zuurbier

________________________________

Van: clean-list-bounces at science.ru.nl namens Benjamin L. Russell
Verzonden: wo 6-2-2008 11:33
Aan: alex; clean-list at science.ru.nl
Onderwerp: Re: [clean-list] Rebranding Clean

Trivial though it may seem, I think that confusion
over the name "Clean" vs. "Concurrent Clean" is indeed
part of the reason for the lack of spreading of the
language.

For instance, recently, I came across a number of
Japanese Web pages on the language, which unanimously
referred to "Concurrent Clean."  One of them, entitled
"Introducing Concurrent Clean" when translated from
Japanese, at
http://www.geocities.jp/lethevert/clean/index.html, as
of October 16, 2005 (when the page was last updated),
 compared the number of Google hits for "Concurrent
Clean" (5,920) vs. "OCaml" (681,000), "Haskell"
(2,440,000), and "Java" (143,000,000), and concluded
that "Concurrent Clean" had strangely few hits when
compared to the other languages.

I think that that number was probably about one-tenth
of the true total number of Concurrent Clean
("Clean?")-related sites.  To do a comparison, I just
ran two Google searches, as follows:

"Concurrent Clean":
36,700 hits

("Clean" +"programming language") OR "Concurrent
Clean":
358,000 hits

Fuzziness over the name apparently causes at least
some foreign users unfamiliar with Google search
techniques to lose about 90% of Concurrent Clean
("Clean?")-related hits.

It is more tedious to need to type something similar
to "("Clean" +"programming language") OR "Concurrent
Clean"" instead of just "Concurrent Clean" (or
"Clean") every time I want to do a Google search.
Most of my information I dig up through Google.  At
least most Japanese users also use Google for the same
purpose, and most of them only know how to type one
word or phrase into the search engine.

It would also help if Concurrent Clean ("Clean?") had
a REPL, but unfortunately, the folks at Software
Research Technology Group apparently seem uninterested
in this idea.  PLT Scheme and GHC both have a REPL,
which is incredibly fun to use and aids learning; why
can't this language (I had to use this phrase to avoid
repeating two names again) have one?

Benjamin L. Russell

--- alex <maskif at yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>
> --- Pieter Koopman <pieter at cs.ru.nl> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > the name Clean was chosen long before google was
> > invented and dominated
> > the world.
>
> I certainly appreciate that.
>
> > Using the search term "concurrent clean", the home
> > page is the first
> > link found by google. The same holds for "clean
> > functional programming".
>
> But I already know where clean's homepage is. I have
> no idea if anyone else (outside academia) is
> seriously
> using clean.
>
> > I think adding a few search hints for google is
> more
> > effective than a
> > new name.
>
> Then anyone that publishes info on Clean needs to
> qualify it.
>
> > Thanks for bringing this up anyway,
>
> No problem. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, it's
> just unfortunate that Clean goes for the most part
> unnoticed.
>
> I think it's a case of simple marketing. Presumably
> you are operating as a business if you are offering
> commercial licenses. As a business, I don't think
> it's
> constructive to get sentimental about the image. My
> guess is that any company in your position would
> rebrand, revamp the website, and get as many people
> using "the language formerly known as Clean" as
> possible.
>
> Cheers, Alex
>
> > Pieter Koopman
> >
> > alex wrote:
> > > I am finally going to pickup Clean. From what I
> > have
> > > read it seems pretty cool.
> > >
> > > I have to wonder though why it is relatively
> > obscure
> > > compared to the other FPLs, especially
> considering
> > its
> > > (apparent) strengths.
> > >
> > > I can guess I am not the only one that has
> noticed
> > > that the difference is cultural. In addition to
> > the
> > > lack of third-party documentation, information
> on
> > > Clean is almost impossible to search for.
> > >
> > > For instance, "Haskell XML" puts me in the
> > ballpark,
> > > while "Clean 'programming language' XML" gives
> me
> > > nothing useful. It will be hard to build any
> kind
> > of
> > > (global) community while this is the case.
> > >
> > > Are there any plans to rebrand Clean to be more
> > search
> > > friendly?
> > >
> > > Cheers, Alex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >       Get the name you always wanted with the
> new
> > y7mail email address.
> > > www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > clean-list mailing list
> > > clean-list at science.ru.nl
> > >
> >
>
http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/clean-list
> > >  
> >
>
>
>
>       Get the name you always wanted with the new
> y7mail email address.
> www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> clean-list mailing list
> clean-list at science.ru.nl
>
http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/clean-list
>

_______________________________________________
clean-list mailing list
clean-list at science.ru.nl
http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/clean-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.science.ru.nl/pipermail/clean-list/attachments/20080206/8666f45d/attachment.html