Hacker News Reader

Comment by matt2019 | Hacker News Reader

matt2019

Tangential, but reminds me of Stephen Wolfram's story of how it got the name Mathematica. It was actually Steve Jobs's idea:

"Over the months after our first meeting, I had all sorts of interactions with Steve about Mathematica. Actually, it wasn’t yet called Mathematica then … For a while he wouldn’t suggest anything. But then one day he said to me: 'You should call it Mathematica.' … he told me his theory for a name was to start from the generic term for something, then romanticize it." (Wolfram, Idea Makers)

View on HN

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica - Isaac Newton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Pri...

While I have this book in front of me: "all sorts of people were telling me that I needed to put quotes on the back cover of the book [A New Kind of Science] ... Steve said, 'Isaac Newton didn't have back-cover quotes; why do you want them?'"

This reminds me of one of my favourite Ayn Rand quotes: after being asked to shorten John Galt's (interminable, 70-odd-page, tiny print) speech in Atlas Shrugged - "Would you cut the Bible?"!

> then romanticize it

You mean romanize? And not just on the surface (latin alphabet), but even using the actual word from latin (which is already romanized greek I guess) and of course all the related living languages...

edit: I always felt strange naming a software exactly the same name (in many language) as the field it operates in. Like naming a music creation software Music, or a biology related software Biology, etc. It is like equates the software with the whole field, suggesting that there is no difference between the software and its disclipine. It is a marketing trick that have a bit of bragging side, but of course it is common pattern, e.g: https://www.amazon.co.uk/I-Am-Football-Zlatan-Ibrahimovic/dp...

I'm not sure what you're getting it. I think GP meant "romanticize," i.e., "deal with or describe in an idealized or unrealistic fashion; make (something) seem better or more appealing than it really is."

(Though in this case the intended meaning is probably a little closer to "build mystique surrounding.")

I agree with your point about naming a product to cover the whole field. It does seem off-putting--although I think examples of it are pretty rare. (In fact, I can't think of any off hand...) In this case, "Mathematica" is far enough from anyone's ordinary English usage that it doesn't fall into that category for me. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone say the word "Mathematica" to refer to anything other than the product. It would be a different story, of course, if it were just called "Math."

Mathematica" is far enough from anyone's ordinary English

Ok, I see. But it is not true for a large(not english speeking) part of the world. It is like calling your "pineapple" software Ananas[1], you just romanticize it in a small region while interfere with traditional word usage in the other part. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/2pp0s6/pineapple_p...

Ah! Yes, I wondered if part of the disconnect was that we speak different native languages, but I did not want to assume. (Though perhaps I should have just asked.)

When the Swiss designer Max Miedinger created a new typeface in the late fifties, his client Stempel AG wanted to call it Helvetia, which is another name for Switzerland. Max Miedinger found it silly to name a typeface after a country and suggested Helvetica - the Swiss. That's what we've got Helvetica.

> I always felt strange naming a software exactly the same name (in many language) as the field it operates in. Like naming a music creation software Music, or a biology related software Biology, etc.

IIRC Microsoft did this (Word, Windows) with hope that the press would feel the need to use “Microsoft” to disambiguate, improving brand recognition.

I definitely believe that he had nothing to do with naming it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com