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

[Tim Cross]

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"?

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.

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. 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.

> Would the word "parse" be good?  "Code-analyze"?
> I never used Eglot so I don't know what it does.

No, none of those words/terms are appropriate. Eglot is essentially just
a client for servers which implement the language server protocol. It
simply takes the data provided by those servers and uses it to annotate
your code using flymake. It is just the glue between a language server
and flymake - we could call it language-glue or ide-glue! Neither are
jargon or too technical (I doubt IDE is considered jargon or technical
these days). 

If you are going to insist on a new name, I would suggest you also need
to understand what eglot is and what the language server protocol
architecture is about. Without these key elements, you are unlikely to
be in a position to judge the suitability of the name.

See for example

https://whatacold.io/blog/2022-01-22-emacs-eglot-lsp/
https://langserver.org/