Programmers and software developers lost the plot on naming their tools
by todsacerdoti on 12/11/2025, 6:06:42 PM
https://larr.net/p/namings.html
Comments
by: plorkyeran
> grep (global regular expression print), awk (Aho, Weinberger, Kernighan; the creators’ initials), sed (stream editor), cat (concatenate), diff (difference). Even when abbreviated, these names were either functional descriptions or systematic derivations.<p>If you asked someone unfamiliar with unix tools what they thought each of these commands did, diff is the only one which they would have even the slightest chance of guessing. It's ridiculous to complain about "libsodium" and then hold up "awk" as a <i>good</i> name.
12/11/2025, 9:30:11 PM
by: munificent
<i>> This would be career suicide in virtually any other technical field.</i><p>This article would certainly disagree with you:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Defense_and_partner_code_names" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Department_of_Def...</a><p><i>> the Golden Gate Bridge tells you it spans the Golden Gate strait.</i><p>Is that even a meaningful distinction? Does anyone think, "Gee, I'd really like to cross the Golden Gate strait?" or do they think "I want to get to Napa?".<p><i>> The Hoover Dam is a dam, named after the president who commissioned it, not “Project Thunderfall” or “AquaHold.”</i><p>It was actually called the "Boulder Canyon Project" while being built, referred to as "Hoover Dam" even though finished during the Roosevelt administration, officially called "Boulder Dam", and only later officially renamed to "Hoover Dam".<p>The fact that Herbert Hoover initiated the project tells you nothing meaningful about it. Would "Reitzlib" be a better name than "Requests"?<p><i>> If you wrote 100 CLIs, you will never counter with a cobra.</i><p>But out in the real world, you could encounter a Shelby Cobra sports car, Bell AH-1 Cobra chopper, USS Cobra (SP-626) patrol boat, Colt Cobra handgun, etc.<p><i>> No chemist wakes up and decides to call it “Steve” because Steve is a funny name and they think it’ll make their paper more approachable.</i><p>When you open your medicine cabinet, do you look for a jar labeled "acetylsalicylic acid", "2-propylvaleric acid", or "N-acetyl-para-aminophenol"? Probably not.<p>It's a bad sign when all of the examples in an article don't even agree with the author's point.
12/11/2025, 8:35:04 PM
by: kixiQu
I believe strongly in this counterargument:<p><a href="https://medium.com/better-programming/software-component-names-should-be-whimsical-and-cryptic-ca260b013de0" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/better-programming/software-component-nam...</a><p>Small summary: external identifiers are hard to change, so projects will evolve such that they are not <i>accurately</i> descriptive after time.<p>(Less discussed there, but: In a complex or decentralized ecosystem, it's also the case that you come across many "X Manager"/"X Service"/"X State Manager"/"X Workflow Service" simultaneously, and then have to rely on a lot of thick context to know what the distinctions are)
12/11/2025, 9:27:46 PM
by: arscan
> “But memorable names help with marketing!”<p>> Sure, if you’re building a consumer product. Your HTTP client, cli utility helper, whatever library is not a consumer product. The people who will ever care about it just want to know what it does.<p>——<p>It sounds like the author doesn’t view themselves as a consumer in this relationship, that they are immune to marketing, and that what they are advocating for isn’t just another marketing tactic. I’m not sure if any of those are true.<p>My experience with areas that use functional names to describe things is that you end up in a sea of acronyms (the functional-based names are a mouthful!) and you end in an arguably worse situation (did you say ABDC or ADBC, those are two completely different things).
12/11/2025, 7:06:13 PM
by: jollyllama
Unfortunately this article misses the worst failure of naming: name collisions.
12/11/2025, 10:29:44 PM
by: ctoth
> There’s an odd tendency in modern software development; we’ve collectively decided that naming things after random nouns, mythological creatures, or random favorite fictional characters is somehow acceptable professional practice. This would be career suicide in virtually any other technical field.<p>I'm charmed by the lack of truth in this beautiful sentence. Top of mind for me, at least.
12/11/2025, 6:57:25 PM
by: jasondigitized
Descriptive names are great until the thing you built starts evolving and doing more or less than the description and then is way more confusing that calling something somewhat general like my favorite of all time: 'Conformity Beaver'. The same goes for teams. Mythical creatures are good because they are fun and also allow the team to evolve its mandate and custodianship and may also help with Conways Law.
12/11/2025, 9:56:25 PM
by: the__alchemist
If the community followed the author's guidance, we would have names like "Generic LLM wrapper 690" ("GLW690" if following the early programming language conventions.) or "Github clone with a different ideology 11"
12/11/2025, 6:47:01 PM
by: collinmcnulty
The problem with descriptive names is that they start descriptive but then become proper nouns. At a former employer in the Fortune 100 outside the software industry, everything started with a descriptive name, that then became an acronym. And as every project and tool inevitably developed its own idiosyncrasies, the descriptive name pretty soon didn't tell you anything useful about the project at all.<p>It is an unavoidable reality that knowing something's name gives you very, very little information about what that something is. That's what sentences are for.
12/11/2025, 7:01:18 PM
by: benrutter
> Our field deserves better than a zoo of random nouns masquerading as professional nomenclature. Clarity isn’t boring, it’s respect for your users’ time and cognitive resources.<p>I felt a little guilty at first, I maintain a project called Wimsey (it's a data testing library but you couldn't guess that) and at work my team regularly enjoys fun/silly names.<p>Trying to defend myself, I was thinking about various logical responses to this article: non-descriptive names don't become out of place when a projects goals drift; descriptive names will lead to repitition; etc.<p>If I'm honest though, I think I <i>just like</i> software to have a sense, even a tiny one, of enjoyment.<p>The software I use everyday, like Cron (named after a greek god of time); Python (named after a comedy act) and Zellij (names after a tiling craft) all have fun, joyful names that tell me someone loved and cared about these projects when they built them.<p>I need to learn these tools beyond just "x does y category of thing" anyway, so I don't mind learning these names. And it makes software engineering just a bit more fun than using "unix-scheduler", "object-oriented-scripting-lang" or "terminal-display-manager".<p>I love working in a field where people are passionate about their craft. Stern professionalism doesn't sound like something I want to trade that for.<p>It's a human trait to name the things we love, that's the exact reason why pets typically have names like "cookie" and not "brown-dog-2".
12/11/2025, 8:55:06 PM
by: wpollock
If you didn't already know, what do you think a tool called "emacs" does?
12/11/2025, 6:50:51 PM
by: rini17
That glorious day when I explained to my boss what wiki is and that we should have one internally, he fired "viki" into google, with smoothly honed muscle memory clicked first result..and got full screen of poon.
12/11/2025, 6:23:25 PM
by: dwaltrip
The author is vastly overestimating the general legibility and familiarity of things they happen to know well and are used to.<p>Boring names are also very generic, by definition, and thus often harder to remember. Especially when there are 10 other similar tools. Is it sql-validator, sql-schema-validator, schema-validate, db-validator, or god knows what else?<p>Edit: I am in favor of better “sub titles” / descriptive slugs / and so on. As well as names that are a hybrid of creative and descriptive. Sqlalchemy is a good example.<p>Why isn’t there a command line utility called “whatisthis” with a standard protocol that allows tools to give a brief description of what they are?<p>It could be extended to package managers as well. E.g “pip whatisthis foo_baz”.<p>Shit we should create this…
12/11/2025, 10:12:49 PM
by: notpachet
"First we have to build a Bingo service. See, Bingo knows everyone's name-o..."<p>- 'Microservices' sketch by Krazam<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ</a>
12/11/2025, 7:05:06 PM
by: scoopdewoop
> programming shifted from corporate mainframe work to the community builders > which is good<p>but then:<p>> Our field deserves better than a zoo of random nouns masquerading as professional nomenclature<p>Okay? So is this professional nomenclature or the work of community builders?<p>I think: everyone should code, it should not be an elitist profession, we don't need to all accommodate busy professionals, i'm fine with corporate users having to say my stupid package name at work.<p>> Your fun has externalities. Every person who encounters your “fun” name pays a small tax. Across the industry, these taxes compound into significant waste<p>Someone please get this guy a bong rip.
12/11/2025, 7:17:53 PM
by: Beestie
First it was racehorses. Then it was prescription medications. Then software.<p>I hope this goes no further.
12/11/2025, 10:02:45 PM
by: keybored
> The cognitive tax<p>> Every obscure name is a transaction cost levied on every developer who encounters it.<p>It’s not a mental burden, it’s a cognitive tax. Moreover it’s a transaction cost? Levied on people? Which loads their RAM?<p>Where’s the simple everyday English?
12/11/2025, 10:30:16 PM
by: notepad0x90
Yeah, this is a bit relative. Use microsoft tools/products (especially cloud/office) that came out in the past decade and you'll appreciate every other naming pattern.<p>My subjective view is that names should be exotic, flamboyant, unique and generally wild when it comes to tools. sticking your company's name as a prefix into everything (or the flagship product's) is confusing and only hurts you.
12/11/2025, 6:47:57 PM
by: Tade0
I think the author is ignoring the difference between Branding and several other categories, like technical terms and their common names.<p>The adjustable wrench is named straightforwardly, but most English speakers know it as the <i>monkey</i> wrench. In some European languages its name translates to "French wrench" or "the French" (as in: French person), in others it's "English wrench" even though those two were originally just variants of the adjustable wrench.<p>Point is, all those goofy names are brands that may or may not stick around for longer and the terms for what they actually do are more descriptive.<p>My favourite example: BlueJeans. A videoconferencing platform. Why is it named like that? We might never know, but most likely partly to stand out, but there's a clear distinction between the brand name and the more descriptive terms used to tell what it does.
12/11/2025, 7:16:42 PM
by: Lerc
Past projects of mine.<p><pre><code> 'pedes Glook Fitznik Plops Gyralight I wanted a new tower defence game: So I made one </code></pre> Oh and <a href="https://lerc.itch.io/namesarehardpart5" rel="nofollow">https://lerc.itch.io/namesarehardpart5</a><p>The examples given for real world things The Golden Gate Bridge and The Hoover Dam, are instances of things. Things that the class of which they belong is old enough that Dam and Bridge are not new words.<p>If you are making new things you need a new name. Software is inherently new because computers have been in wide use for only a few decades. Instances of software rarely even get names, just numbers, with project names or nicknames attached. I'd be willing to bet both The Golden Gate Bridge and the Hoover dam had project names or nicknames.
12/11/2025, 7:16:18 PM
by: TehCorwiz
The author should read up on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog_protein" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog_protein</a> or maybe <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface</a> both of which are actually scientifically important things.<p>Amiga famously had a custom ASIC called "Fat Gary" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_custom_chips" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_custom_chips</a><p>I really could go on about this. Names are only useful for distinct identification. They need to be distinct within their domain. Otherwise they're just an index into a list.
12/11/2025, 7:05:21 PM
by: Arubis
Just name everything Phoenix.
12/11/2025, 10:15:01 PM
by: andrewl
I strongly agree with this. And what bothers me more than obscure or meaningless names like Viper are silly and embarrassing names like Hunchentoot. Names like that sometimes cause people to dismiss good software. It’s like using Comic Sans in a serious research paper.<p>One area of the sciences does partly use names like this, and that is biology. Biologists do sometimes name a species after a famous person, as in the louse <i>Strigiphilus garylarsoni</i>:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigiphilus_garylarsoni" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strigiphilus_garylarsoni</a>
12/11/2025, 7:07:17 PM
by: fusslo
are you guys naming your products?<p>We have an internal name and our product name. Internal names start as something that describes the project/repo/tool. Then within 18 months the name no longer makes sense so we rename it to some random name - state names, lake names, presidents, mountains, etc. It's just a placeholder.<p>The public facing product name is a compromise of marketing, trademark, and what gets approved by the CEO. Even the company name might change in startup world. No joke: the startup next door had to change their name because it was too masculine, and they realized more than half their projected market was women.
12/11/2025, 6:58:54 PM
by: thundergolfer
My old company Canva, was pretty good about this and I'm bringing that to the culture at my current place.<p>Krazam has excellently parodied this unserious naming indulgence of programmers[1]. "See, Bingo knows everyone's name-O. So we get the user ID from there." Racoon, Wingman, EKS (Entropy Chaos Service), RGS, Barbie Doll, Ringo-2.<p>1. <a href="https://youtu.be/y8OnoxKotPQ?si=QkI-TPStI9I4RtAB&t=33" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/y8OnoxKotPQ?si=QkI-TPStI9I4RtAB&t=33</a>
12/11/2025, 7:09:15 PM
by: hyperbolablabla
I understand the counterarguments, but I agree viscerally with the arc of this argument. My company has a client who's named there services random names like Chuck and Phobos -- absolutely no inkling about it what they do, and when my colleagues talk about them they may as well be talking Greek. The client I work with names our backend services functionally, like "Royalties" or "Workstation", and navigating the org as a newcomer was way easier for me.
12/11/2025, 10:04:00 PM
by: taylodl
And forty years ago, I was using a tool called Brief, which was a product from UnderWare. I was also using a librarian named Marian.
12/11/2025, 7:23:17 PM
by: zcw100
Why does it have to be all or nothing? How about a clever name or two for marketing that stands out and doesn't get lost in a sentence "I'm not asking you to search, I'm asking you to use the search command" but not obnoxiously over done where everything is named after some Norse god or some other silliness.
12/11/2025, 7:22:32 PM
by: gherkinnn
This reads like an extensive, and frankly exhausting, rationalisation of a personal preference. Personal preferences are fine, I have my own. But please stop thinking they apply universally.<p>Laravel works better than Rails-but-PHP. Ruby on Rails beats Opinionated-One-Person-Stack-Using-Ruby and I'm fine with the name Ruby as well.<p>I shall name my next product larmn in honour of OP.
12/11/2025, 9:42:07 PM
by: lordleft
I am highly sympathetic to this sentiment, but I think it's hard to name things in software because a) it's easy for the obvious names to get overloaded and b) many of the things we are dealing with are basically abstract relationships with arbitrary properties.
12/11/2025, 7:16:34 PM
by: chagaif
Love this:<p>> Name your library after what it does. Use compound terms. Embrace verbosity if necessary. http-request-validator is infinitely superior to “zephyr” when someone is scanning dependencies at 2 AM debugging a production incident.
12/11/2025, 7:23:11 PM
by: michaelcampbell
<tangent><p>What is it with a number of blogs recently that have turned off normal right-click behavior, and probably related, the scroll behavior is awful.<p>This is one, and as soon as I scroll on my work high powered Macbook and it's not smooth, I'm out.
12/11/2025, 7:05:45 PM
by: m3047
As they say in physics: color and charm may change, but up and down are forever.
12/11/2025, 7:12:32 PM
by: GMoromisato
Once again proving that there are two very hard problems in software engineering: Naming things, cache invalidation, and off-by-one errors.
12/11/2025, 10:16:06 PM
by: randomNumber7
C<p>C post increment<p>See sharp
12/11/2025, 10:12:04 PM
by:
12/11/2025, 7:05:10 PM
by: myk9001
<a href="https://youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ" rel="nofollow">https://youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ</a>
12/11/2025, 7:19:04 PM
by: ModernMech
I can't call my new formula translation language FORTRAN because it's been taken, as have many other names. So now to avoid collisions, it's named after my cat.
12/11/2025, 10:06:30 PM
by: queenkjuul
End of the day you know what it means or you don't. I agree it's helpful when a name is descriptive, but there's no helping the fact that you're going to have to learn the names of things that aren't obvious. Purely utilitarian names would constantly collide.<p>I also think they overestimate how distinct terminology is in other fields. Even their example of the I-beam is also known as an H beam or an RSJ depending on who you're talking to. I don't find it hard to imagine a mechanic referring to one of their specialty tools by the name of its manufacturer, either.<p>Regardless, the battle was lost before it started. There has never been good consistent descriptive naming as standard in computing; there was no plot to lose.
12/11/2025, 9:31:14 PM
by: davidfekke
The two hardest things to do in computer science is knowing when to invalidate cache and how to name things.
12/11/2025, 7:35:10 PM
by:
12/11/2025, 7:02:53 PM
by: morshu9001
Idk about open source tools, but internal corporate things have codenames for good reasons.
12/11/2025, 7:04:59 PM
by: ux266478
> Your HTTP client, cli utility helper, whatever library is not a consumer product.<p>I'm not sure how the author came to this conclusion.<p>At any rate, programmers aren't any worse about this than mathematicians. Just replace [fictional name] with some foreign word or philosophical term that's justified with the most insane mental gymnastics you've ever heard of. Given some historical native speaker of Latin, do you think they're going to know what a matrix is for? No, because the word means "uterus". There is no connection to "tabular shorthand of linear transformations."<p>I think it's clear the author is writing this to vent frustration, but I think they've misidentified the actual problem:<p>> http-request-validator is infinitely superior to “zephyr” when someone is scanning dependencies at 2 AM debugging a production incident.<p>My jaw hit the floor reading this. The idea there are people out there debugging codebases without knowing something as foundational as the dependencies is beyond absurd to me. That's insane and horrifying, overshadowing pretty much the entire blog post. Does anyone else live like this? How do you tolerate these conditions? <i>Why</i> would you tolerate these conditions?
12/11/2025, 7:23:53 PM
by: NotGMan
>> Early programming languages followed similar logic: FORTRAN (Formula Translation), COBOL (Common Business-Oriented Language), BASIC (Beginner’s All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code), SQL (Structured Query Language), I believe Lisp stands for list processing. The pattern was clear: names conveyed purpose or origin.<p>"names conveyed purpose or origin.": no they don't. If I use the authors example of the two people talking: as if saying "BASIC" instead of "Cobra" explained the meaning anything better to a person who never used BASIC.<p>I've been programming for 15 years+ and never used basic due to my age and I never know, until today, that BASIC stands for "Beginner’s All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code".<p>Why? Because I don't need to know and it doesn't make the usage of BASIC anything different.
12/11/2025, 6:57:40 PM
by: irusensei
>Every person who encounters your “fun” name pays a small tax. Across the industry, these taxes compound into significant waste<p>>Reserve the creative names for end-user products where branding matters. For infrastructure, tools, and libraries, choose clarity. Every time.<p>Ah yes the software I am giving away for free must go easy on the minds of the poor VCs and business drones who are extracting value from it.
12/11/2025, 7:10:05 PM
by: taeric
I find the remark that we give things names more as a word play than purpose.... kind of amusing? Like, of course people will find a way to play with the tools they have. And in programming, that is often words. Because what else would it be?<p>By far the worst aspect of the nerd ecosystem is the odd belief that pops up every so often that names should matter. In every ecosystem, there is usually some odd idea that it is only in their world that people abuse this.<p>Just skim through that list of things that are unexpectedly named after people. Sure, you can get upset about Shell's sort not having any relation to shells. Or Bloom's filter not having a phase where the data "blooms" into use. But you would have the same issue with French drains. Or how gaslighting has nothing to do with lighting things on fire using gas and the affect that will have.<p>Honestly, I think this would be a fun list to just keep going. Akin to the old Chuck Norris joke generators.
12/11/2025, 7:06:34 PM
by: fph
Like GMail addresses, all the good names are taken.
12/11/2025, 7:03:51 PM
by: dist-epoch
Irrelevant. LLMs know all the names. In 1 year they will be doing all the SSHing and terminaling.<p>Quickly: name the AVX2 instructions that the compiler emits for math calculations
12/11/2025, 10:01:34 PM
by: amelius
One more reason why Windows is better than OS X.
12/11/2025, 9:52:50 PM
by: jameshart
> naming things after random nouns, mythological creatures, or random favorite fictional characters is somehow acceptable professional practice. This would be career suicide in virtually any other technical field.<p>Really? Have you specced a microprocessor lately? Seen what pharmaceuticals are called? How polymer compound materials get named?
12/11/2025, 6:53:55 PM
by: casey2
LMAO ok dude, don't like it? fork it and change the name. The author has a DEEP misunderstanding of the science of human language, not surprised he's a Chomskyite.<p>Rule of thumb, disregard every post that uses the phrase "context switching"
12/11/2025, 10:16:45 PM
by: bighead1
counterpoints:<p>pascal, eiffel, ada, C, APL, dylan
12/11/2025, 7:16:01 PM
by: colechristensen
>There’s an odd tendency in modern software development; we’ve collectively decided that naming things after random nouns, mythological creatures, or random favorite fictional characters is somehow acceptable professional practice. This would be career suicide in virtually any other technical field.<p>Odd? Modern? I started working professionally in 2005 and everything had silly names. The DNS server was named athena instead of c302r5s1 or whatever building/room/rack/position name. I once rebooted a server that had an uptime of 12 years, so it had been running since 1993... it indeed had a silly name. Everything had silly names, usually types of things had a theme.<p>>Same thing applies to other fields like chemical engineering, where people there maintain even stricter discipline. IUPAC nomenclature ensures that 2,2,4-trimethylpentane describes exactly one molecule. No chemist wakes up and decides to call it “Steve” because Steve is a funny name and they think it’ll make their paper more approachable.<p>How about piranha? aqua regia? Up/Down/Strange/Charm quarks? Gluons? Like a third of the elements named after people or places.<p>Curium, Einsteinium, Fermium, Mendelevium, Nobelium, Lawrencium, Rutherfordium, Seaborgium, Bohrium, Meitnerium, Roentgenium, Copernicium, Flerovium, Oganesson -- I guess none of these people were named Steve, but you get the point<p>These tendencies are OLD and EVERYWHERE. IUPAC names are just a convenient way to serialize data.
12/11/2025, 7:14:24 PM
by: anthk
- VTL-O2<p>- Forth<p>- Grep<p>- CVS (I'm not an American but you can relate)<p>- Clang<p>Altough MS products can be as opaque if not more. And let's not talk about IBM...
12/11/2025, 7:01:12 PM
by: formula1
One issue with package naming is competition. One of the great things about OSS or software in general is people can take inspiration from other projects that do the same thing. Personally I've ran into deciding which casting library to use<p>- runtypes - <a href="https://github.com/runtypes/runtypes" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/runtypes/runtypes</a><p>- zod - <a href="https://zod.dev/" rel="nofollow">https://zod.dev/</a><p>- ajv - <a href="https://ajv.js.org/" rel="nofollow">https://ajv.js.org/</a><p>AJV and runtypes use the naming convention that the article suggestions. It's named is derived from how it's used. Zod on the other hand seems to come from left field.<p>Personally, I built a simple caster called "ShallowCaster" before choosing to move to a library as things got move complex but I think a problem is that as competition increases the "generic" naming becomes more difficult to find.<p>I suppose an option is to include the author name for each package such as "json casting from google" or "@google/json-casting" this way all packages can use the descriptive naming while not conflicting
12/11/2025, 6:51:44 PM
by: IshKebab
Preach! The worst excuse I hear is "but if we have a meaningless name it can't become inaccurate later when the project changes!".<p>Uhm yeah. That's like saying "if stab myself to death now I can't die of dementia in old age!"<p>Edit: look, it's here! <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46237390">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46237390</a>
12/11/2025, 10:02:28 PM
by: alienbaby
I have agreed with this for at least a decade. Name your things in a way related to what they do.<p>What does chef do? Garden? Pig? Burp?<p>Nonsense.
12/11/2025, 7:02:56 PM
by: marifjeren
There is actually a good reason not mentioned, not to name tools by their purpose:<p>- the purpose will change<p>Your "silicon-valley-bank-integrator" tool will eventually need to be updated to do something else.<p>Or your "login-page-config-service" tool may eventually do more than just logins.<p>Using gibberish or mythological names gives a nice memorable name that doesn't lead (or mislead) you to believe it does a particular thing which may or may not be correct anymore.
12/11/2025, 6:36:40 PM
by: groby_b
Wait till you work in a corporate environment, where Project Fuzzy Mustard triggered a violation of the ElastoFish metric in the Yellow Hills subsystem, leading to a Code Mild Lavender with a side of Pink Sprinkles.
12/11/2025, 7:10:22 PM