Re: plz -> curl?

[Po Lu]

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> We have arrived at a deep and fundamental disagreement about what it
> means to make a program clear.  I have pointed out that the name "plz"
> gives no information about what the package does.  It is totally
> unhelpful.
>
> You contend that an arbitrary and unhelpful name is just as good as a
> helpful name.  The argument is that we have commands to do searches
> from the name to its purpose and from words in its purpose to the
> name.
>
> Those commands are helpful, but using them is laborious by comparison
> woth the simple verbalconnection.
>
> For the packages feature, I am a beginner.  I don't know those
> commands.  I will learn these commands if I start using packages more,
> but there will always be many users who are beginners in this.
>
> Whenever we add a new package, we should consider whether to change
> its name first.  But plz has not been installed for long.  Giving it a
> clear, meaningful name now won't cause any pain.

I agree completely.  There are many unhelpful package names, such as
"corfu", "cape", "eglot", "marginalia" and "mcd".  At least eglot could
be renamed "lsp-client", which tells the user exactly what it does.

> A clear meaningful name does not have to be long.  Someone suggested
> `curl' -- meaningful, and quite short.  Perhaps `curl-url' would be
> even more helpful, to the many who who don't use curl -- and it is
> still short.
>
> If no one has a better idea, let's rename it that way now.

curl is already taken.  `curl-url' would work, but so would
`curl-http-client', which I think is relatively more meaningful.