And as for the origin on the Chicken Scheme name, it is mentioned here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9323673

It's portable, but it contains a compiler? For any architecture?

> Currently Ribbit supports the target languages C, JavaScript, Python and Scheme

Aha. So it compiles to another language, and relies on that for portably compiling to a target architecture. Actually pretty sensible!

Well, apart from the last option. Using Scheme to compile this Scheme implementation, written in Scheme, to a Scheme program which you can run on another Scheme implementation is surely just Scheme with extra steps.

Anyway, how does the incremental compiler work with the C target?

Does anyone know of scheme (or other) such interpreters that better in that respect?

    picbit scheme

In 20 years of googling there is only one project I had a hard time googling (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/390016.808445). It does not happen.

* https://duckduckgo.com/?q=clean+programming+language

Both get language pages on the first hit past the ads.

As far as I can tell the complaint is being made now, not 10 years ago. But maybe I'm wrong and actually I've woken up in the past - please let me know if that's the case.

Took me exactly two searches - one to figure out what lsd stood for (which I'm sure you knew, so you wouldn't have the same issue) and then one more to pull up the paper.

May be because number of those names grows and it's becoming overwhelming?

>"some hypothetical person"

It's not hypothetical person I constantly stumble on strange names and frequently in context where I do not care how it is called as long as I know what function it performs (even approximately). And strange names appear more and more and the main question I have usually: What is it? What it does?.

The same happens with web sites for new products. With all great slogans like "It will improve your productivity" and similar sentences I am not interested to read it's lacking one mention of what it actually does and what it's all about.

Thus the idea to use prefix-Name format in descriptions. What do you think about that idea? Would it improve educational function? Would it be easier to understand then searching for the term?

While neither "chicken" nor "scheme" is a very good search term on its own, of course, "chicken scheme" works pretty well.

It's far from the most unsearchable name I've seen.

With all respect my focus is not with that specific name but with proposition to add prefixes-to-Name when it may be unclear to possible reader.

The number of those names is growing and it seems inevitable to do something about it. It's hard to read page and search every word on it while it's enough to approximately understand what is it about and search for details later if there is a need.

I am honestly surprised how many people in HN comments have this same complaint over and over again. Not everything needs to be directly searchable by name only.

The idea is to provide some explanation about the Name instead of just using the Name. When you track many domains reading BazunaGuanga is harder then lisp-dialect-BazunaGuanga or at least lisp-BazunaGuanga

lisp-BazunaGuanga would quickly learn that "Lisp" has a pretty vocal crowd that think that it either only means "Common Lisp" or a Lisp2, and take quite a decent amount of offense to any Scheme being called a Lisp.

And scheme-BazunaGuanga would have people complaining that the name is misleading, because they were expecting it to be about the Bazuna Scheme, which is a name clash with some esoteric financial strategy, or expected it to be about Guanga Bazuna's algorithm, etc.

On the other hand, as well as a title we have a link, like most aggregators, and the first line you're giving after clicking it is:

> A small and portable Scheme implementation that supports closures, tail calls, first-class continuations, a REPL and AOT and incremental compilers.

I don't need to search anything to know that this is a programming language, implementing a standard, which has a feature list. Even if I had never encountered Scheme before.

True, for someone coming at this who's not Scheme-implementation-familiar, the names might as well be Zaphod, or Beeblebrox, or similar-seeming nonsense.

It seems in any 'domain' there is a set of definitions that is assumed in that domain. That is, I don't see any real problem with naming here.

Your point is clear, but he probably did not have second thoughts considering he was doing it for fun.

Honestly I prefer playfulness and fun in naming. All I suggest is to provide later on some prefix for reader to understand at least something as a starting point if the name is unfamiliar. For example lisp-Kurunga instead of just Kurunga.