Hey Greg - I agree that search should be better, but I think naming conventions are still very important.
Your argument assumes that the user knows they want to get X, or that there is a method available for getting X, or that “selecting” or “finding” X is the same as “getting” X.
Also imagine searching “get X” and seeing “getX,” Xget", “get.X” and the mental energy required to decide which is appropriate for your task. This is basically the current scenario in the Dynamo package ecosystem, which is very open and therefore often redundant, and redundancy is confusing.
And not all libraries play well together - for instance, debugging a workflow that accidentally mixes up Rhynamo and Mantis Shrimp nodes is difficult. This is why, though verbose, I’d actually prefer any non-core nodes to begin with the package name.
And consider the intelligibility of a graph lacking naming conventions, particularly when collaborating with others or on-boarding novices. Again, from a mental effort perspective, a lot of interpretive work could be offloaded by a known standard or convention.
Dynamo has democratized design computation, which means a lot of different user types. Different users will search different ways - so the ability to scan a traditional hierarchical library is just as important as the ability to run a search.