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

[Philip Kaludercic]

Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi all, João,
>
> Now that we're getting closer to merging eglot, I think it is our last
> chance to (re-)consider that "eglot" is not the ideal name.  It has some
> charm, of course, but it is quite non-descriptive and it's hard (read:
> impossible) to understand what it does based on the name alone.[1]

I can only agree.  Especially because there are a number of packages
starting with "el...", which makes misreading the package name as
"elgot" very easy (which is still how I pronounce the package when
speaking to this day).

> As for names, lsp-mode would be the obvious choice, but some other
> package has occupied that prefix (too bad).  I therefore propose
> renaming it to elsp-mode and using the elsp-* prefix for it.
>
> At the very least, we should consider adding some alias, like
> `start-lsp', and/or `lsp-start'.[2]

I think that even using the word "lsp" suffers from the same issue, as a
lot of people still have no idea what LSP is (even if they are using
it).  I don't have a better suggestion but maybe mentioning the word
"intelligence" or "ide" would be better.

> Footnotes:
> [1]  https://lists.gnu.org/r/emacs-devel/2020-05/msg02828.html
>
> [2]  https://lists.gnu.org/r/emacs-devel/2020-05/msg02818.html