Is there a version of math with better names for things? Imagine if we had "Naur loop" and "Hoare loop" instead of "for loop" and "while loop." Yet we have Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, Kullback–Leibler divergence, Euler's formula, ...

Picking good names is a crucial tool for thought. A good name communicates or reminds you of the idea underneath an abstraction. Naming something after a person is the 2nd laziest form of naming. First is "Type 1" and "Type 2" error, the dumbest naming scheme ever invented.

Extended thoughts. Naming conventions that need to die: willcrichton.net/notes/namin…

I feel like the "personal greed" angle isn't quite right -- I don't think the folks you cited named these things after themselves. E.g. Cauchy just called it "theorem 16": gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bp… . Avogadro's constant was named a hundred years after discovery.

What typically happens is that folks publish a paper containing some idea, and it turns out that idea is Important, and without a name for that idea folks just start calling it "Foo's theorem" or whatever

in both physics and math part of the problem is that there are so many new things being discovered that it's hard to know in advance which ones are important enough to name