Love him or hate him, he does have a point though. Some package names in anything are simply meh, or as some wag said, "naming things is one of the hardest things in computer science"

He maybe has a point but it is to late now, his message is far removed from reality.

I don't get the downvote but some Stallman fanboys maybe.

Nevermind that Eli replied in no uncertain terms that this was not a helpful suggestion: >Please help me get Emacs 29 on time and also with enough features to justify a major release. I \_need\_ that help, and I need the understanding to go with it. I do NOT need proposals that will make the job harder. Please bear with me. And that rms just... disregarded that completely. bad look.

Can't the change be made at some time in the future? Discussions about packages whose name are not indicative of their function makes it hard for those unfamiliar with the landscape to follow conversations. You are required to pause and go look up what those packages are before understanding what is going on. Those extra steps could be minimized. Emacs is not npm or those new utilities written in Rust. I mean what do names like Tokio, Grin and Diem mean? Before long we'll be into the territory of the bizarre brand names on Amazon.

None of the suggested names help a user unfamiliar with implementation details like lsp. `Parse mode` gives no indication that the mode would provide code linting, auto-formatting, or other code actions. Are there any good examples of emacs package names that don't depend on knowing about implementation details? I can't think of any.

> I don't get the downvote but some Stallman fanboys maybe. I don't know man, I am certainly not RMS fanboy, and I am quite sure he is not mine. I have downvoted this thread because I personally think it was just incredibly unnecessary, uninteresting and to a degree even disrespectful, to bring that here and ask people to take one or another side. Just plain stupid in my eyes. They argue on that mailing list about everything and anything all the time, that does not mean they are fighting each other. There have been numerous discussions about how stuff should be named, or what should have been done, etc, who cares. I am quite sure ELI and RMS will neither be mad nor befriend each other regardless what they decide to do. Sitting here, calling people fanboys, taking sides etc on such a simple matter that they will resolve the best way it suits Emacs development is just, sorry, very unnecessary to put it mildly. There are so many similar discussions there between RMS and ELI, search through the history. By the way, those lists are public; anyone who has an opinion is free to subscribe and post there, don't keep it for yourself here and blame one or another for something you like or not. You don't even need to be subscribed, just post it to the list, if you have something to say.

I mean, a short description of pretty much every elisp package out there is just a "M-x describe-package" away?

> just post it to the list, if you have something to say. eh. tbh, the signal-to-noise ratio is already very bad on that list, I think it's a good thing to have other spaces to discuss these matters

:-) So you rather add more noise elsewhere, especially in places where it does not matter at all? Well you either have something to say or not. If you have some intelligent input on the issue to add, I am sure emacs devs would be happy to hear it. But if it was only about discussing the issue, I wouldn't say anything, but look at the title. If your words are just a noise about whose "side" you will take, as this thread seems to be about, then it is just contraproductive noise to the community and to everyone. Just mine opinion.

They should go the opposite direction and name the package something irrelevant, like Crabapple or something. You can’t make everyone uniformly happy, but you *can* make everyone uniformly perplexed.

I don't know why but I lost it at "crabapple" lmao. Good suggestion!

I’ve actually made that argument in all seriousness. If there is no good term made up of regular words then inventing some new term is usually a good idea. Names simply can’t all be made immediately obvious.

I think most of RMS’s suggestions were made without a super clear idea of what LSP is.

Eh. I sided with RMS when I read that. These deadlines are really just self created goals. There is no “need” anywhere to be found, just a goal made by the very same people with the power to change it.

Eli expressed a need pretty forcefully. Like many of us, he finds deadlines useful. Also, I suspect he's seen projects fail for lack of them.

This. As it was explained to him over the next *two* weeks (he couldn't research or try it himself. thar be non-free javascript out there) "it doesn't actually parse, it's an LSP client which uses information from a server to provide Emacs with many features on many language specific major modes" **E**macs poly**GLOT** (polyglot meaning many languages) ends up being a fairly descriptive name

Can someone describe why a name change is even on the table or being discussed at all? "eglot" seems a perfectly fine package name; not great, but totally fine.

Yes, at the very least, it’s going to be a name that’s googleable.

Let us list down few scenarios: 1. User knows about language sever protocol and looking for a package that supports it. 2. User knows about the protocol and knows the package name already 3. User doesn’t know about the protocol and looking for some package with all the bells and whistles to help him/her write code. 1 and 2 are already covered whatever you name the package. As long as the description contains the protocol name it is searchable in list-packages. Scenario 3 is not covered by any approach. You name it anything.

But rms has a point. You can't really change a package name after it's been added.

It's a popular package that has existed outside of core for many years. It's already too late.

“Eglot” is a good name I think, even better than the name "lsp-mode". We ( the eglot users) have been using this name several years, it is short enough and easy to remenber, and easy to type `M-x eglot`. The only thing new user need to do is to have a look the description of Eglot, and then he will known what Eglot is. So there is no need to rename Eglot, the discussion is a waste of maintainer's time.

[deleted]

I read through much of the thread yesterday. Let me summarise: Eli Zaretskii (head maintainer) is against renaming - partly because people have been using it already for 6 years (or more) and partly because of the extra work involved in renaming it and concern that it would delay the release of emacs 29.1 around November. Richard Stallman said it's an unhelpful name because it doesn't indicate its purpose or use which he clearly doesn't understand. No harm in that, you can't know everything. Throughout the thread he does make some good points. He replies to someone's suggestions > > - ide-mode > - integrated-development-mode > - {smart,intelligent,clever}-mode > - programming-mode > - syntax-mode > You've tried to resent descriptions which are short enough that they might serve as command names. Unfortunately, that shortness makes them less than helpful for explaining the job that Eglot does. > Each of those names can fit other things in Emacs. When people mention the capabilities of language servers, he keeps claiming they are irrelevant implementation details because they don't relate to what the users of eglot experience. Later he claims to have renown for naming things and proposes > Parse Code When someone points out the absolute futility of trying to search the web for emacs parse code vs emacs eglot he replies that people should primarily be using the manual to discover emacs features.

Even worse - "Parse **C**ode." Such a generic name for something it doesn't even do. Code service broker would a more accurate name. It's facilitates so many different services from such a wide range of languages it's hard to think of a good concise and descriptive name.

Can't miss a good opportunity for bikeshedding!

i think Eglot is a good name. First of all, the most important, and not enough stressed… There has already been a LSP-mode in eMacs before Eglot released… then what name can you have to not conflict with LSP mode? Any time related to LSP can only make user get confused and make retrieve information from Internet less effective ( you need to spend time to figure out which LSP client it’s talking about) And Eglot, short for eMacs polyglot, it’s really a good name that can be imagined to LSP. You are saying that no one can connect “Eglot”, a weird abbreviation to “emacs polyglot”? Okay, but for a newbie who just uses vscode, idea, or whatever before, do you expect him to know what does LSP refer to? LSP is just a abbreviation even more arcane than Eglot… And another thing important, if the user wants to use LSP, he has to install the LSP server program like pyright, Clangd, jdtls by himself… then if a user can install those things, is it possible that the user doesn’t know what LSP is doing?

Most important, if the user wants to use lsp, he has to install LSP servers like pyright, jdtls… by himself. If the user doesn’t install those things, he cannot use Eglot no matter what name you rename Eglot to… So, if the user can install Clangd, pyright, … Should we expect him to not know what LSP is doing? Not likely.

I think RMS completely misunderstood what LSP is doing. LSP can never work out of box… The user has to know what LSP is doing before he can use lsp. It’s not just implementation details, it’s the prerequisite. If the user wants to use lsp, he has to install LSP servers like pyright, jdtls… by himself. If the user doesn’t install those things, he cannot use Eglot no matter what name you rename Eglot to… So, if the user can install Clangd, pyright, … Should we expect him to not know what LSP is doing? Not likely.

Naming might be hard but renaming is harder especially after a package has been in use for some time because documentation, tips and references that could be useful for a user would accumulate over time. It is almost impossible to backtrack and change all that. So it is better to stick with the original name.

That is not always the truth. Don't know how eglot does its things, but lsp-mode can install most of the servers for you automatically.

To those who think it’s a good name: answer me. What the hell is a Glot??

I like "cia-mode".

Yeah that was my interpretation of the situation. It's a shame that the people who are actually doing the work (for free nonetheless) have to deal with the constant obnoxious "WE SHOULD DO X BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS SOMEONE TELL ME BECAUSE I WON'T USE GOOGLE".

[https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-glot](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-glot) >\-glot > >a combining form with the meanings “having a tongue,” “speaking, writing, or written in a language” of the kind or number specified by the initial element: polyglot.

If the second part of the word seems unfit, maybe use the first one: "epolylang". I like the name, tho. Sounds like several different scrambled eggs. Like a python egg (Yes, pythons do lay eggs!) here and a C egg (eggheads?) there, all combined into one tasty dish. Now this threat taught me (being non native) the word "polyglot" and I'm impressed, yet still hungry. Type "eglot" into google. Get relevant results. Good name.

I'm genuinely curious: is it true that he does not use google or any other search engine at all? how does he learn anything then

No Eglot doesn’t do this for you. And it is not likely that a builtin emacs package can install third party programs for you… Considering miscellaneous reasons like licensing… not likely.

RMS out there taking an issue with eglot when GIMP has been gimped by its name for years

> When someone points out the absolute futility of trying to search the web for emacs parse code vs emacs eglot he replies that people should primarily be using the manual to discover emacs features. God, what a perfect encapsulation of Stallman.

Not to mention that eglot is a *great* name to just look something up. Imagine googling for "parse mode"