I actually love the idea of totally new naming schemes for experimental software.

Certain name types are so normalized (agent, worker, etc) that while they serve their role well, they likely limit our imagination when thinking about software, and it's a worthwhile effort to explore alternatives.

I do too, but you can take things too far, which I'd argue has happened the moment "figuring out what the names mean" becomes enough of an intellectual challenge to provide a dopamine hit; at that point, you've (intentionally or otherwise) germinated a cult. It's human nature: people will support the design not on its merits but rather as loss aversion for the work they put into decoding it.

This reminds me of Moldbug's Urbit. I can't be bothered to look it up, but his comment was along the lines of "existing words bring assumptions, so safest to make new ones". To which, my comment would be: perflufflington flibnik qupnux.