I'm not sure if names like Zydeco or Kavorka help making your modules popular.

Unless you don't want them to be known... ;-)

If you look at the most upvoted distributions on CPAN, you'll find a lot of them are "creatively" named, by which I mean they don't have names which describe their purpose. In the top ten, for example, there's "Mojolicious", "Moose", "Moo", and "Plack".

Kavorka has more upvotes than Method::Signatures::Simple and MooseX::Method::Signatures and almost as many as Method::Signatures.

Moops has more upvotes than MooseX::Declare, Object::Pad, Dios and any other similar module.

Zydeco is only a few months old, but I hope it will eventually replace both of those.

I do think that having a memorable one-component name can be a good marketing tool for a module.

toby döt ink

It's up to you, I'm only trying to help.

I can only tell, that I find remembering words like "Kavorka" and "Zydeco" hard, probably because of the distant cultural references and missing mnemonics. (I know the words "mojo" and "delicious" and can recombine them.)

I once gave a talk about sub signatures (I think it was in Amsterdam) and did intensive search for dozens of related modules and was very surprised when I was asked about Kavorka.

I had to ask multiple times how it's pronounced and spelled.

The names are unique and original, I have to admit! :)

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

Note, the alternative to trying to achieve the One True OO^tm in Perl is the OOP Soup that we have and is currently growing. I am not opposed to this either and would offer the same sort of contribution to a reward to the person who wrote the 100th minimally functional OOP module on CPAN (or alternative, the person who wrote the most minimally functional alternatives approaches in a 6 mos period). TIMTOWTDI after all.