[clean-list] Rebranding Clean

[Benjamin L. Russell]

The problem with searches in foreign countries
requiring such phrases as "programming language" is
that people in those countries will not use those
phrases because those phrases are not part of their
natural language.

For example, in Japan, while people will search for
"Concurrent Clean" because it is a name, people will
not search for "programming language" because that
phrase is in English, and most people here do not
write English (even though they have no problem in
reading simple sentences in English).  They will never
search for "Clean" because that term brings up too
many false positives, and they usually do not know how
to use regular expressions (or the equivalent).

It is still possible for them to search for
"プログラミング言語" ("puroguraminngu gengo")
in katakana and Kanji, because they write Japanese,
but they will not usually do so because they also want
English documents to read (they can usually read some
English, even though they do not write English).

So, they will still count and compare the total number
of hits worldwide for a Google search for a
programming language using a keyword search that does
not include non-name English words or phrases or
regular expressions or their equivalents, and use this
information as data in choosing which language to use:

Google search results:

"Concurrent Clean":
36,600

"Clean" +プログラミング言語 [Japanese term
for "programming language"]:
34,600

("Clean" +プログラミング言語) OR "Concurrent
Clean":
47,400

Some significant computer languages (including
Concurrent Clean itself, and Ruby) have been created
in foreign countries; this is a significant market
that should not be ignored.

Benjamin L. Russell

--- zuurb078 at planet.nl wrote:

> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> clean-list mailing list
> clean-list at science.ru.nl
>
http://mailman.science.ru.nl/mailman/listinfo/clean-list
>