I had the pleasure of interacting with Duncan and Bob when XZ calculus was being developed. While I did not use their calculus for my own research, it did inspire the graphical notation I doodled with.
While I agree that naming a thing after a person makes it less clear at first glance, it is definitely not to intentionally sound smarter and exclusive; it's simply a handy short label for often subtle and complex things in an environment where you are constantly referring to it. New fields or domains will typically develop their own notation, as they often require new tools of thought. I'm sure you are not suggesting that Feynman diagrams or Einstein summations making things more complicated than they really are.
To your point: the annoying part is when the conventions clash. In early QC works an X could be the X-gate or something else completely. A good chunk of the effort in writing or understanding a QC publication was establishing the notation. After a while notation gets a bit more consolidated as conventions get naturally established. Of course, if you move from a world that has established its own conventions, e.g. behind the iron curtain, it can be frustrating to be confronted with the many eponyms in a field where you already have deep expertise. I had similar experiences just from working in teams that were using different programming languages: "Why call it a SAX parser? That's just tree-recursive descent!"