I don't think this would make sense. Sure, you could invent a naming scheme to convert a netlist to a unique name. But this wouldn't make sense, because there are so many more possible components than in chemistry and by reading the name, it would be difficult to imagine the circuit.
First, I mentioned the netlist as an
example, not as the answer. It is the only example I am familiar with in electronics in which a circuit is described without means of a function and without drawing a picture. At risk of trying to explain by example, consider norbornane:
Its name is bicyclo[2.2.1]heptane. The "bicyclo" denotes two rings, and the numbers are the number of non-common (non-bridgehead)atoms in each ring. In this particular case, it is unambiguous, but in tricyclooctane isomers and many other compounds, you need to define the bridgehead atoms. Moreover, using the simple rules for absolute configuration (i.e., R and S nomenclature), one can describe stereo isomers in 3D space without a picture. I see a clear analogy between the chemistry system of naming and a type of netlist.
Second, as for the number of "components," I would like to see your data on that. How many different components are there? Remember, a single compound "cetane" (hexadecane) has over 10,000 isomers, and every one of them can be uniquely named following current rules (
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/hexadecane).
The chemistry naming system is not complex and can easily be learned by high school students without nuch backgrond in chemistry. They do need to know or be able to find the atomic numbers for elements.
For example "op-amp input plus signal is input, op-amp input minus connected to op-amp output, op-amp supply plus connected to positive supply, op-amp supply minus connected to GND, op-amp output is output" would be difficult to understand and it doesn't say what it does. Instead there are lists of op-amp standard circuits and this kind of circuit is known as "buffer".
That is my whole point: I am saying there needs to be a searchable index of circuits that is independent of function. In essence, the index will let you find out what a circuit does and possibly other ways to do the same thing. Of course other indexes of function are also useful. Extending the chemistry analogy, you can search on phenacylbromide (old name: alpha-bromoacetophenone). Every chemist knows what it does, but you don't need to know that to look it up and find out. You can also search on what it does (lachrymators).
Actually, while writing this response, maybe it makes sense It would need some software support, for example a netlist format with coordinates for easier visualization, because auto-layout programs couldn't show it in a way that engineers are used to see the circuit diagrams, but then you could search for netlist fragments or whole netlists in a database. And each stored netlist would have a unique name for what it is used for, or what the common name is, e.g. "op-amp buffer". Same like in chemistry, H2O=water.
Glad you agree it may be feasible and will require a lot of work and revision. Chemical naming has been revised at least twice in my life. Fortunately, the revisions are not that hard to remember when you are forced to do that.
John