Do you think the IUPAC naming system is perfect or is it flawed?

>>8728099
it really annoys me how to deprecated a lot of things for seemingly no reason i dun get it

>>8728099
Sometimes the traditional naming is more frienly. The iupac should simplify some naming.

>>8728099
It is pretty dumb.
Just use pictures and then refer to them like "that acid", "the product A", "the product B", "aspirin". We are living in digital age. Then the computer can store that data as a vector image. Using names like 1,3-fhioadfho,2-2-disdiojioj is purely retarded.

>>8728099
Once you get used to it its pretty usefull descriptive system.

>>8728099
Literally everything is flawed and nothing is perfect.

However, the IUPAC naming system is so far doing a pretty good job, and does well enough that the effort of getting everybody to agree on and switch over to any new system would likely outweigh the gains.

It certainly gets unwieldy for complex organic molecules, but that's more or less an inevitable result of trying to describe a complicated three-dimensional structure with an informative, human-compatible string.

>>8728099
Its great for small stuff, if you have something big it becomes to much, but i still like it. At least you can construct the formula just form the name, you dont have to look it up somewhere else.

>>8728099
Far from perfect,it's only good to describe small molecules, if you're a polymer scientist or work with similar complex molecules it's useless.