There is a thought here: when something is well designed (including branding), it's possibly attributable to a better process used to create the product as a whole (in this case the frameworks and API).
I've worked at places where acronyms are rife, and they're usually places that didn't feel the product needed to be sold (possibly because they didn't think they had any competition).
Other places I've worked where we actually pitched/sold the product (either internally or externally) resulted in a lot more overall thought about what the product did and how the customer would use it and consequently the naming.
.Net Standard, .Net Framework, .Net Core, and they all do slightly different things, and they seemingly change with version, and now there’s .Net Framework 5, which apparently replaces/unifies some of them but it’s not super clear. Then you’ve got C# and F# and the specific language versions of those. Oh also, don’t forget the fact that there’s inexplicably like, 3 different package managers, which may or may not pull from the same place and it’s not clear what the differences are.
Coming from Python (and a little bit of Rust) I had literally no idea what was going on. I tried to learn C# twice and gave up out of sheer irritation and confusion.
(That and Turtleneck Steve prohibited browser plugins on iOS.)
A good brand name doesn't require explanation.
I mean the pun is obvious, but a swift is a kind of bird.
I specifically think it's a bad idea to name things "fast", because history will catch up to you and it might not be fast anymore, or it might be unsafe - and then what will you call the next thing?
Actually, this happened in Swift. -Ounchecked (no bounds checks) was originally "-Ofast", but thankfully they changed it.
The predictable numbers are as important to the brand as the manufacturer name.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I do agree though with the .NET stuff - I have been out of the ecosystem for a while and have no idea what is going on any more.
Apple creates these new names that are unique, exciting, and evoke something concrete. It makes it easier to remember what they mean when they’re talking about something. So for example, their new UI framework is called SwiftUI which builds off the swift legacy and logo and the emotion of being faster therefore better, whereas MS’s was UWP. WTF is UWP supposed to evoke. How am I supposed to mentally associate that with something.
And the .Net stuff was otherworldly. You had .Net Core, .Net framework, and .Net standard. Other than Core, neither of the other have any unique meanings. All the 3 are frameworks and standards. Or strongly associated with frameworks and standards. 2 of them are technologies, and one is just a document, but they all sound the same.
.Net core sounds like it should be a subset of the other stuff, yet it’s the future. If it wasn’t MS who invented .Net Core, they may have given it a different name, say, I don’t know, Mono, and it wouldn’t confuse the crap out of people. They would need to be told it’s a ground up rewritten open source implementation of the .Net Framework which will eventually supersede it once and they would not get confused again.