While neither "chicken" nor "scheme" is a very good search term on its own, of course, "chicken scheme" works pretty well.
It's far from the most unsearchable name I've seen.
With all respect my focus is not with that specific name but with proposition to add prefixes-to-Name when it may be unclear to possible reader.
The number of those names is growing and it seems inevitable to do something about it. It's hard to read page and search every word on it while it's enough to approximately understand what is it about and search for details later if there is a need.
Your point is clear, but he probably did not have second thoughts considering he was doing it for fun.
Honestly I prefer playfulness and fun in naming. All I suggest is to provide later on some prefix for reader to understand at least something as a starting point if the name is unfamiliar. For example lisp-Kurunga instead of just Kurunga.
I am honestly surprised how many people in HN comments have this same complaint over and over again. Not everything needs to be directly searchable by name only.
The idea is to provide some explanation about the Name instead of just using the Name. When you track many domains reading BazunaGuanga is harder then lisp-dialect-BazunaGuanga or at least lisp-BazunaGuanga
lisp-BazunaGuanga would quickly learn that "Lisp" has a pretty vocal crowd that think that it either only means "Common Lisp" or a Lisp2, and take quite a decent amount of offense to any Scheme being called a Lisp.
And scheme-BazunaGuanga would have people complaining that the name is misleading, because they were expecting it to be about the Bazuna Scheme, which is a name clash with some esoteric financial strategy, or expected it to be about Guanga Bazuna's algorithm, etc.
On the other hand, as well as a title we have a link, like most aggregators, and the first line you're giving after clicking it is:
> A small and portable Scheme implementation that supports closures, tail calls, first-class continuations, a REPL and AOT and incremental compilers.
I don't need to search anything to know that this is a programming language, implementing a standard, which has a feature list. Even if I had never encountered Scheme before.
True, for someone coming at this who's not Scheme-implementation-familiar, the names might as well be Zaphod, or Beeblebrox, or similar-seeming nonsense.
It seems in any 'domain' there is a set of definitions that is assumed in that domain. That is, I don't see any real problem with naming here.