That may be the case, but Rune as a term for implementation predates the accepting of UTF-8 as Unicode.
In addition, Rune refers to a specific implementation of the code point. As far as I am aware, UTF-8 doesn't define a code point as being uint32, rather it just defines it as a point within the code space (which is defined to be at least a certain size), a code point could be implemented in any number of ways internally. When talking about implementation details, a Rune is defined as a uint32, which is analogous (for implementation purposes) as a code point.
That is to say, a Rune is a manifestation of a code point, but a code point need not always map to that internally. This is like complaining over using "int" instead of "uint32_t" (I'm sure someone else can think of a better example, actually).
In addition, Rune refers to a specific implementation of the code point. As far as I am aware, UTF-8 doesn't define a code point as being uint32, rather it just defines it as a point within the code space (which is defined to be at least a certain size), a code point could be implemented in any number of ways internally. When talking about implementation details, a Rune is defined as a uint32, which is analogous (for implementation purposes) as a code point.
That is to say, a Rune is a manifestation of a code point, but a code point need not always map to that internally. This is like complaining over using "int" instead of "uint32_t" (I'm sure someone else can think of a better example, actually).