Reconsider the "For Humans" mantle

[coleifer]

I wrote a short piece on my issues with projects that label themselves For Humans . You can find the full version here.

Your awesome project did a good job summarizing, though, so I'll just paste the summary:

When Kenneth Reitz created the requests library, the Python community rushed to embrace the project, as it provided (finally) a clean, sane API for making HTTP requests.

He subtitled his project "Python HTTP Requests for Humans", referring, I suppose, to the fact that his API provided developer-friendly APIs.

If naming things "for humans" had stopped there, that would have been fine with me, but instead there's been a steady stream of new projects describing themselves as being "For Humans" and I have issues with that.

When a new project comes out describing itself as X for humans , it somehow implies that any other libraries existing in the X space before were somehow not for humans.

To call your project For Humans is just a pretentious way of saying that you see your project as having a superior API to other projects in the same space.

So many projects have taken up the for humans mantle that can it really be said to mean anything anymore?

records , "SQL for Humans" legit , "Git for Humans" pep8 , "pep8 for Humans" hypermark , "markdown for Humans"

If your project has an awesome API, then say that instead.

If your project is an improvement over other projects in the space, then tell us why.

But just labeling your project for humans is both disrespectful and honestly a bit cringe-worthy.

Fantastic work on the project :)

[jjangsangy]

I'm actually not very partial with the "for humans" moniker either. I'll definitely consider replacing it once I can think of a suitable replacement. Definitely appreciate your input, I'm a big fan of peewee!

[coleifer]

Thanks, I'm flattered that you've heard of peewee!

[jjangsangy]

Tagline has been changed so closing this.