[rhodin]

Counter-anecdote time from Murray Gel-Mann, who did think names were important [1]

[1] https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2019/05/remembering-murr...

[taeric]

I don't think anyone in computers can purport to names being important. Shell's sort, Bloom's filter, awk, c++, Java vs JavaScript....

The number of names that are misleading or almost willfully obtuse is absurdly high. (I'm actually cheating for folks in my list, as I typically see it just shown as shell sort and bloom filter. Which hides that it is named for someone.)

[stonemetal12]

At least Shell invented the sort named after him. In the sciences you have Stigler's Law (no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

[taeric]

That is hilarious! Yeah, my qualm is less about Shell's sort being named after him, and more that many places present it as shell sort, where you can easily think there will be some form of shell game involved. Akin to thinking a bloom filter must be something about growth or flowers blooming.

I also don't mind algorithms named after people, and can understand some of how that gives provenance, at the least. The Knuth-Morris-Pratt algorithm is a good example of that. What makes things difficult is that many of the other sort algorithms were not after people's names. Unless there is a Merge that I am unaware of. :D