I'm more often annoyed by projects named after mythological creatures, vegetables or puns. They're fun for a while, but when I import something into a project, it helps if it's at least a little bit self-documenting – `import Rest` rather than `import Bazooka`, say.

There's a little bit of that in Haskell right now. It's kind of OK with, say, `profunctors` which probably has everything anyone could ever imagine about profunctors in Haskell. Furthermore, as a mathematical concept there is not a lot of possible variability in that library.

Similarly, `lens` right now has pretty much everything under the sun about lenses, though some prefer the simpler lens packages like `lens-family`.

I kind of feel less confident about the choice around `rest` since there are many interpretations and implementation choices which may lead to a desire for competition here. But I'll reserve actual judgement until I use it. I wouldn't at all mind a comprehensive, provably correct webmachine-like implementation of REST called `rest`.

> I kind of feel less confident about the choice around `rest` since there are many interpretations and implementation choices which may lead to a desire for competition here.

I feel the same about lens :)

Note that we didn't even upload a package called 'rest'. We uploaded a family of packages starting with 'rest-'.

I think broad names like that are always contentious, but if the packages which own them are genuinely good packages then it's a net win. I'm personally not hugely opposed to `lens` or `rest`, tbh.

You guys just better earn your keep on that name ;)