> Hu? You are aware that programming languages are not human right?

you'll have to forigve the length of my response here, it is my only defense for someone so patronizing.

> So how does one "dehumanize" something that isn't human in the first place?

you could deduce i was not referring to the dehumanization of software, i referring to the dehumanization of the art, rhyme and reason behind naming things. your notion that discoverability is "the number one goal of the name of a programing language or library" is also an opinion, and i posit that the authors of all the software i listed would consider it your opinion as well. that, or they are all incompetent.

in my previous post i tried to treat "discoverability" as a valid argument with respect to these names, but i must admit it sounds imaginary. all of the examples i provided, are by your measure are undiscoverable therefor "bad". yet somehow, everyone still finds them just fine, they are all insanely popular, Google returns the proper results on the front page, and the world keeps spinning.

> And just to strengthen my point, actor names are required to be unique, if the name is a duplicate they make them change it. Yes, the actual human, is required to change their name. The actor guild understands what good names are.

the actors guild doesn't give a shit about "good names", they give a shit about protecting actors. that is why they exist. the reason they restrict unique names is so i cannot start acting under the name Jack Nicholson, receiving undeserved credit. does USPTO require unique trademarks because they "understand good names"?

> Depends. Do bands need to be searched for to get additional information about them?

of course they do. just like a painting or song must be searched to find additional information. so band, painting, and song names are "bad" if they are hard to Google? this is what i consider dehumanizing. a name is a form of expression.

if i am naming my song, my band, or my library, i really don't care if you have trouble Googling it. i'm not naming it for you. and if my song, band, or library is of value to people, it will become discoverable despite it's name.

> Go search for some of those names, are see how the results are a mixture of different things instead of just the topic at hand.

if your query does not return the results you want, it is your responsibility as a user to refine your query. for example, if you tried to Google "meteor" with the intent to research the space rock, half the front page results will be about an irrelevant software library. by your logic, this makes "meteor" a bad name for the space rock.

> Wait, so you are defending your example, by giving me more examples of bad names? How does that defend anything? You are just making my point for me.

i am providing more "bad names" to prove my point that either you need to recalibrate your measure for "bad name", or everyone else does.

> I guess you have never come across some obscure language, and try to get more info about it, only to have most of your search results be about entirely irrelevant things?

this is a loaded question. the definition of obscure here is "hard to Google", so of course an obscure language would be hard to Google. that said, even 8 years ago i had no trouble researching the Io language, when it was harder to find on Google than it is today. this is part of my basis for calling your argument imaginary.

there are nearly infinite examples of things succeeding despite their name being initially undiscoverable, and it is impossible to prove a single case where something failed because it's name was hard to Google. why am i defending the only side of the argument that has data to support it?