I feel a bit weird about tying the memory caps to the name, it should be something that should be open to change.

It might be fixed for LSO, and mono will probably fade away at some point, but I hope a future will pass when we see the memory cap doubled.

So I'd prefer the generational numbers of 1-3 for LSL.

LSL Plus (ducks, hides, enters witness protection program)

Joking aside, I am in favor of a two-name or name and number solution.

No more than one or two names, no parenthesis attempting to further categorize or explain anything.

my primary motivation for this proposal is discussions with non-scripters. "SLua" is currently a buzzword, and if I mention the benefits of "LSL on SLua", 6 out of 6 people I've talked to assumed I've already rewritten 20 scripts in a new language, and wildly underestimate the amount of work I still have to do.

I'm already tired of having to explain "script engine vs language", so I'd rather have a less loaded term like LSL 128 or LSL 3 to discuss what's definitely the most important new feature about this whole project, at least in the short term. Long term, it's the new language, but short term, it's the new LSL compiler

I really like Kristy's suggestion of "LSL 128", because it conveys, in 6 characters, exactly what my non-scripter coworkers need to know: "It's LSL, but bigger, and faster"

I'm fond of naming things "Bob"...

How about:

or: