The idea behind the name (Emacs
polyGLOT) is not intuitive.
Since when are names "intuitive"? Do I have any intuition about who
you are or what you do from your name alone? Names are abstract
indirections by definition (with some 20th century structuralist and
post-structuralist caveats that I really don't think apply here).
I have no problem admitting "Emacs polyglot" is mostly a half-assed pretext
to justify a distinctive, easy to type name. I wouldn't fixate on it.
Some people like its sound and uniqueness. A demographic you are not part
of, I comprehend that. You can't always please everyone.
> I don't even think it is necessary to rename the implementation as long
> as at least one auto-loaded alias is available.
What is this idea? Say you make M-x philip an auto-loaded alias for M-x eglot.
Say I go with that, then what? What about M-x eglot-rename, M-x eglot-reconnect,
M-x eglot-shutdown and all the eglot- user variables, etc?
They keep the same names? What good is that really? Alias all of them?
No thanks, there are enough confused users already: I want to communicate
with them as unequivocally as possible
João