I think these posts get a lot of new eyeballs, and as someone who clicks on a lot of "new major release for X" posts, it's always an annoying side quest to go and figure out what the product is before going back to the post.
Congrats on the launch :)
On topic: This tool to make diagrams using plain text looks great. Definately going to see if I can utilize it in a project.
Example: https://penrose.cs.cmu.edu/try/?examples=graph-domain/other-...
My reference point would be "proper" press releases. There's always some very basic blurbs about the company and/or product being announced, in addition to the meat of the announcement. This blog is essentially a press release for nerds, so I think following a similar pattern is in the best interest of the writers for these announcements.
As a mathematician. I cannot get over the fact that a tool called Penrose that makes (according to its documentation) diagrams, does not, in fact, make Penrose diagrams [0]. Nor even Penrose-Carter diagrams [1]
The output looks lovely, and I would like to use this for my math notes, but I cannot bear to accept such a disturbing name.
Question: Why did you chose this confusing name? Could you justify it in the introduction of the documentation? [2]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_graphical_notation
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagramme_de_Penrose-Carter
Look at the VHS tool for example — it doesn’t have anything to do with physical VHS tapes, but it does record a scripted shell invocation as a GIF for embedding in docs and demos and such. Super easy name to remember. See https://github.com/charmbracelet/vhs
> Why did you chose this confusing name?
The main idea of the project is to generate diagrams from mathematical notations. So we want a name that people can associate with both "notations" and "diagrams." In addition to this, some of us also liked the fact that the name can be broken down into "pen" + "rose" :D.
We're really open to suggestions on names if a new name can help us spread the words on our core idea and the tool. "Escher" was one of the early candidates, too. Let us know!
> Could you justify it in the introduction of the documentation?
Great suggestion! Will do.
> As a mathematician. I cannot get over the fact that a tool called Penrose that makes (according to its documentation) diagrams, does not, in fact, make Penrose diagrams [0]. Nor even Penrose-Carter diagrams [1]
We never got around to make some Penrose diagrams in Penrose, but Penrose is an extensible platform! If you make a lot of them and want to make them in Penrose, join the discord (https://discord.com/invite/a7VXJU4dfR) to chat with us. I'd love to have some Penrose diagrams in our gallery too ;).
The latter is something we're working hard on. We're trying to find the right balance between simplicity and expressiveness, and starting to explore options beyond our trio-DSL approach. We don't have great docs on this yet, but we have some experiments with using Penrose as a library in combination with SolidJS: https://github.com/penrose/penrose/tree/v3.0.0/packages/soli...