I'd say all of the above objections don't fix any of the actual issues (which revolve stem from there being multiple, similar, metrics one wants regarding the size in bytes, characters, normalized characters, etc of a unicode string), while introducing extra semantic bike-shedding!
Whether the metric is called "length", or "size", or whatever, is irrelevant, and length for strings and arrays and lists is so well entrenched and understood that the objections don't make sense.
What's actually the problem is not that "string length" is not "really" a length in the way that a leg or a wall has length, but that for unicode strings it's difficult to calculate, and confusing, unless one understands several unicode implementation mechanics...
The name length itself, for example, or the measuring of said length, was never an issue with ASCII strings (the issue there was to remember to add/subtract the NUL at the end).
Whether the metric is called "length", or "size", or whatever, is irrelevant, and length for strings and arrays and lists is so well entrenched and understood that the objections don't make sense.
What's actually the problem is not that "string length" is not "really" a length in the way that a leg or a wall has length, but that for unicode strings it's difficult to calculate, and confusing, unless one understands several unicode implementation mechanics...
The name length itself, for example, or the measuring of said length, was never an issue with ASCII strings (the issue there was to remember to add/subtract the NUL at the end).