[filoleg]

> I think it's a fine name, better than most, because it's a normal English word that says exactly what it does / what it's for

Just because the name says exactly what the product does and what it's for, that doesn't automatically mean it is good. In fact, imo it is bad in a lot of cases.

Do you think Instagram would have gotten as popular if it was named FlexGallery, or if Nextdoor was named SpreadRumorsActVaguelyRacistForum, or if Twitter/X was named PopularityContestShortMessagesAndBadNewsSourceSpaceWithSomePorn?

I personally would say "no" to all of those, and it isn't just because the names get unnecessarily long and ugly. McDonalds would never rename itself to Cheap Passable Fast Food Restaurant.

[simonw]

Some things really can buck the trend - ChatGPT is a _terrible_ name but provided so much obvious utility that it managed to reach a large consumer market despite that.

[ziddoap]

ChatGPT and Scuttlebutt are both bad names, sure, but in completely distinct ways.

[rzzzt]

FlexGallery could work... the rest are Java class names.

[filoleg]

Actually agreed about FlexGallery, now that I am thinking about it.

As for the rest, they just miss [...]Factory and [...]Controller prefixes, and then they truly would become typical Java classes.