georgeprosser wrote:I apologize that I'm dredging this discussion back up. I haven't read through the entire thread but I wanted to share my opinion all the same.
I am currently teaching a bunch of 13-14 year-olds game programming using LOVE. The vulgar naming of libraries has a negative effect on my ability to teach. I don't want to encourage the kids to have a look at the libraries online (which I would do to make them more independent programmers and to read the documentation) because it would be a huge distraction to the kids while I'm trying to teach them.
Furthermore, it would undermine my authority, not only in the eyes of the kids but with the other teachers. I am a student myself so I was putting myself on the line by getting them to use LOVE rather than something like PyGame or GameMaker. This makes the framework that I've vouched for look immature, unprofessional, and unsuitable for the young children who will be using it (LOVE will soon be used with 11-12 year olds at the school too, potentially even younger).
It's not a huge deal but it's unnecessary to make the library names so rude. If you are making a library please consider that although a rude name might not actually offend anyone it can still have a negative impact on LOVE.
I'm in a similar position at the moment. I've started up a youth computer group to help kids and teens learn coding and overall just make for a good environment for them to interact and grow. They don't teach programming in schools here, and I want to make for an option. Make a bit of a difference.
I personally don't like the particular humor, but you know, I don't want to get too controlling in that either. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and all that.
I think I can overlook most of the library names brought up here as inappropriate, despite the side of "innocence" I personally walk on (which I think I can use as a good guide in my situation). I think the few worse ones are older, and in that, I simply wonder why such outdated material is placed in a wiki list meant to be a helpful aid to begin with? Seems like it could be beneficial for all around to trim the list of the ones that would be pretty irrelevant now.
I do think that, as things stand now, I shouldn't refer young people to LÖVE's own site. I probably just need to make use of the
downloadable documentation, editing where need be, and just make for direct links to anything else from a site I put together myself. It kind of sucks, but what else can I do? And then if kids go online, make their way to the real site on their own, and stumble across things, I can only say to any possible complaining parents that I cannot control what is on the internet and that I made reasonable strides to prevent them from going into such territory, controlling what I was able to control (short of not using LÖVE entirely). It's kind of on the parents at that point, though I hate to say.
Whoever calls the shots for LÖVE's site, that's where the decisions lie. Or even in just the devs who make the libraries, as they pick their names. Not me. I'm willing to try to do what work I have to do to make LÖVE work for my situation, because I really do find LÖVE to be awesome. But if any sort of aid to make what I or others are trying to do easier could be given, (from the people able to control that content or otherwise) it'd be much appreciated. I don't exactly care about looking professional and I don't want to wreck someone else's experience with LÖVE. I just want to use LÖVE to teach kids without causing issues.
Thanks for reading through.
