Re: Renaming eglot -- or at least add an alias?

[Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>]

Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> writes:

> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Can anyone suggest a way to describe the job that Eglot does, NOT
>> using technical jargon, or implementation details such as "LSP"?

Some ideas of the top of my head:

- ide-mode
- integrated-development-mode
- {smart,intelligent,clever}-mode
- programming-mode
- syntax-mode

I don't even think it is necessary to rename the implementation as long
as at least one auto-loaded alias is available.

> Isn't that the crux of the issue - it seems nobody has any suggestion
> any better than eglot. Quite a few of the suggestion are worse.

Which ones were worse?  The only one I recall was "Elsp", as it is just
one letter away from "Elisp".

> One thing you could do is just call the package eglot-lsp, which might
> give you the additional name info you seem to desire. The package
> namespace could remain eglot-*, so perhaps would not have the overhead
> and delay to release of Emacs 29 which a full rename would cause. 

> Personally, I would just stick with eglot as I think this whole argument
> regarding the need for package names to describe their functionality is
> misguided. Great if you can do it, but should not be a necessity. 
>
> In general, it seems only very simple and single purpose packages lend
> themselves to clear descriptive names. For example, tempo, skeleton and
> flycheck. 

I wouldn't say that tempo or skeleton are descriptive...

>           Few packages which perform multiple functions seem to have the
> sort of descriptive name you are after. The name closest to function I
> can think of for eglot would be lsp-client, but that is too close to
> lsp-mode and in general, too close to 'lisp' and 'elisp'. Using the full
> name i.e. language-server-protocol-client is cumbersome, we be shortened
> in actual use and will likely result in confusion with lsp-mode.  
>
> A good name is the one which you can easily remember and
> communicate. Once you are told what eglot does, you will remember
> it. You don't need its function to be in the name.

I've said it before, but "eglot" is a particularly bad name in this
respect and harder to memorise.  The idea behind the name (Emacs
polyGLOT) is not intuitive.  Upon hearing it for the first time you
might as well think it is called "egg-lot" or "iglot", it is easy to
misread it as "elgot".  All of which make about as much sense to someone
who is learning about this for the first time.

Either way, I see this as a particularly short-sighted way to look at
the issue.  It might be the easier option right now, but I expect many
users in the future to stumble over this issue for no reason at all.