Yes, I'm part Dutch, and Hein is Dutch, whereas Heinz is usually German. I was born in Canada, but I'm descended from this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Pieterszoon_Hein.
@Dr Herbie: I realize you're just a bit further away.
@Bas: Yeah, my thoughts exactly.
On TWC9 Dan says that nominees will be getting passes to Mix ... is that true? That would be awesome! Tell me it's true.
P.S. During one of the live C9 shows at one of the PDCs ... I think '09 I was supposed to get a C9 guy as a prize for answering some quiz questions but never got it. I still want it. What's up with that??
IIRC, it was dropped because Reflector did everything that the dev (Sauron??) was trying to do with Anakrino. (EDIT: Once Lutz got the decompiler working, Saurik decided there wasn't much point in continuing to compete with Reflector.)
EDIT: Saurik, not Sauron. AKA Jay Freeman.
@Charles: Nothing wrong with paying for software, but I personally feel it's pretty uncool because of the spirit in which Reflector was made and originally released to the community. Lutz Roeder made it and never asked for a cent. IIRC, he was the first .NET MVP because of it (correct me if I'm wrong).
If he had of charged for it later on, I would have no problem with it, because it's useful and he deserves to be paid; but he didn't, probably because he thought it would be taking advantage of the community who became dependent on it. It feels like one of the "conditions" of transfer of ownership, implied or otherwise (I'm not saying it was) was that there would always be the base, free edition. When RedGate took it over and just asked for payment for the pro version (and the pro edition does have many nice features ... I should have bought a copy long ago, to support the development and I didn't ... my bad), while maintaining the original for free, I felt that was good for everyone.
I guess it's just not enough money, but I still feel like they'd be better off continuing to add to the pro edition and keeping the base product free because all .NET developers use it. Although, $35 isn't too much to ask from my perspective, for a perpetual license, some devs will balk at it, and it will just be a pain point in the working environment, simply because I can't just say to anyone, "crack open that assembly with Reflector and find out", instead many people will complain that they have to pay for it and are less likely to just use it. It's something that should be in VS. I wish MS would have picked it up from Lutz instead of RedGate.
Anyhow, it's not that I won't pay for it; I probably will, I just hope RedGate includes all the professional features for that price too. Eventually I will get over it.
I saw it last night and was totally shocked to see my nomination. Now I'm going to have to try to be helpful.
I saw this a while back and mentioned it before in response to another niner looking for material and books to learn CS. There's a Google Tech Talk (61 minutes) about the course, available here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7654043762021156507#, which I really enjoyed as well.
You should definitely not call it B flat because everyone would have a brutal time typing it out. C# was bad enough for that. Also, "flat" just sounds bad. I also wouldn't name it C anything because it doesn't look anything like C, and using C in the name implies that the syntax looks something like C and is derived from it.
As for how names are found ... well, I know C# was picked because it's derived from C++ syntax, C+++ is just too many +'s but # looks like a bunch of pluses put together, 4 of course, and that's close enough to emphasize that C# is an evolution of C++ in a sense, but quite different).
F# - F obviously F stands for Functional. They didn't really need the #, but there's already an F - a subset of Fortran, so the # distinguishes it from F and also hints that it's a .NET language, because of C#. Having a musical connotation in .NET languages kind of ties things together. I always wondered why they didn't call VB.NET, VB#. Actually they could drop the V(isual) altogether ... it's kind of lost it's purpose considering that many languages have drag and drop designer based IDEs now.
I would consider the syntax and inspiration for your language and maybe base it off of that. XVAR is probably not a bad name. If you can, maybe you can relate it to another language in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages.
H, N, O, P, U, V, W, and X are the only single-letter names not listed in Wikipedia. P would be too funny to use in conversation: "I wrote it in P". In general I don't think single letter names are a great idea nowadays.
You should consider what you would find if you tried a Google search ... I heard the creator of Clojure said he picked the name because it sounds like closure and nothing came up in Google when he searched for that. If you search for XVAR now, you see the domain name is taken and there are some technical references related to Cisco, and other various results.
I can't believe there's no language called Babbage.
EDIT: There is a language called Babbage ... it's not in the Wikipedia list referenced above, but is present in Wikipedia: here. (Update: I've added it to the list of programming languages page.)