I think the correct approach is to do full-real-name_good-package-name it might not be practical but it would be legendary.

Not even remotely a joke.

The inverse-style domain name thing does a really good job of removing the whole issue of squatting from the ecosystem. You have to demonstrate some level of commitment and identity through control of a domain name in order to publish.

I would also say that this puts just enough friction so that people don't publish dogshit.

crates.io demonstrates quite clearly that you either have to go all the way and take responsibility for curation or you have to get completely out of the way. There is no inbetween.

Having tried Java and other languages, no, it's not a joke. Other than XML Maven got a lot of things right.

and i dont particularly think that using xml is that bad. The schema is well defined, and gives you good autocompletion in any competent IDE (such as intellij).

It took some iterations before maven 3 became "good", so people forget that it wasn't as nice before now! Unfortunately, it seems that the lessons learned there is never really disseminated to other ecosystems - perhaps due to prejudice against "enterprisey" java. Yet, these package managers are now facing the sorts of problems solved in java.

And you don't even need to use XML with Polyglot Maven

https://github.com/takari/polyglot-maven

What the hell is that XML hate

Whats the diff between changing lib version in xml and json?

I have no problem with XML in general and even think it's still the better format for many things. But it's not really appropriate for a build config. Thankfully Maven now offers polyglot but I've seen no use of it in the wild.