[fpc-pascal] OT: Rename for Pascal

[Mark Wood]

>>> I have a lot more examples of such problems using the "Pascal" and the
>>> way it "sounds"...
>>>
>>> And in the bottom line, it's all about marketing.
>>>       
It would probably help if it had a name other than "Free". It refers to 
free as in OS, of course, but many people read it as "free" (as in beer) 
and thus cheap and nasty. It wouldn't bother me if it gets a new name or 
not, but I think that many people would view it in a better light. It 
sure wouldn't hurt if FPC had a sexier name. It would probably even help 
students get into it more as there is a definite "cool" factor in using 
"Mono" or "C sharp" or "dot NET" or various other names that have more 
style. Even poor old Lazarus was a leper. What does that say to the 
casual observer? Software for outcasts? Pascal already has a reputation 
for being a fringe technology.

It doesn't have to be about business in order for a name to effect 
support for a solution (such as FPC).

>> For business maybe.
>>     
>
> Also for Open source projects (look for Linux as an example).
>   
Agreed. Marketing is not restricted to commerce. IBM uses the term 
"mindshare" to describe how much of people's thinking a product or 
technology (such as FPC) occupies - a concept specifically divorced from 
the concept of "marketshare". Do we (as the FPC community) really want 
to reach the situation where noone is using the language? I guess not. 
In which case we DO need "mindshare". Call it marketing, or call it 
"relevance". However you want to cut it, we need it in order to be 
meaningful. Not saying that we should change the name, necessarily, but 
we shouldn't be one-eyed about the idea.
>> People forget the bottom line; FPC and Lazarus are HOBBY projects
>> for the core developers. We do not want or need to make money with
>> them. Otherwise we would not have made it open source in the first
>> place.
>>
>> If you do happen to make money on the side with it: congratulations.
>>
>> But do not expect business arguments to have any influence whatsoever
>> on the core developers. That includes name changes, which are simply
>> not debatable.
>>     
If that is the case, then FPC should not be used for industrial 
applications. This idea suggests that FPC is a toy. I know it isn't, but 
if the core team is sending the message that it is, then it doesn't bode 
well for the future of the project. I am happy to use FPC precisely 
because it isn't a toy, but a very solid, functional platform which 
holds its own well, if not ideally against most other platforms. Is that 
a mistake? I am not convinced it is, but if the core team is of the 
opinion that the system is just a pastime, perhaps I have the wrong idea 
entirely?
> The project IMHO is far from only be a hobby, because it catch up
> additional people, and there are commercial program using that hobby,
> and if you want believe that is should only be something small,then
> why do you support so much things, instead of just  supporting your
> own systems ?! it been a long time since it was only a hobby, now it's
> a project with audience.
>   
Agree.

And, FPC is a great bit of gear. It's sad to see people selling it 
short. The developers have done a excellent job with it (quite simply, 
it is state of the art). FPC should step forward and stake the claim to 
the credibility it has earned.

Cheers,
    Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-pascal/attachments/20070813/fbb6fd83/attachment.html>