> Same goes e.g. for LINQ, which was influenced by SQL instead of LISP-like collection transformation functions.
This was an explicit decision to make functional programming more palatable to mainstream developers.
Have you read the paper from Erik Meijer?
It's pretty obvious that this was a conscious decision. And it makes a lot of sense too, if you think of Microsoft's target audience.
But still - if you're used to the functional "default" naming schema (which mostly comes from math, anyway), it's nontheless something that can be a bit irritating (especially since there's also the "inline SQL syntax" you could use alternatively).
It definitely is. I started with C++, and at some point I found my way to Common Lisp. At first I was surprised at how many weird names the latter has... and then I got used to them, started to like them, and now I shake my head when I see new languages inventing new names for things that had a perfectly good Lisp name already, probably because they didn't know the concept had already existed for 50+ years...
C++ also often had that (replacing 'map' through 'transform' and so on) - but since it's a standard, at least it is usually more consistent in its own internal logic. Same goes e.g. for LINQ, which was influenced by SQL instead of LISP-like collection transformation functions.