From: garylscott@sbcglobal.net   
      
   On 1/26/2024 1:25 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote:   
   > Harold Stevens  schrieb:   
   >> In  Lawrence D'Oliveiro:   
   >>   
   >> [Snip...]   
   >>   
   >>> Why is that still the case?   
   >>> Longer names have been allowed for going back   
   >>> about a third of a century now.   
   >>   
   >> Suppose you're in charge of CERN, and responsibile for integrating   
   >> 2 bazillion lines of particle physics code in libraries resembling   
   >> the Tower of Babel.   
   >   
   > Then you have about the chance of a snowball in a Supernova of   
   > avoiding name conflicts in your subroutines and COMMON blocks   
   > if you stick to six-letter identifiers.   
   >   
   I hear this a lot here, but we had a very strong and unique, consistent   
   naming convention for procedures and variables (many millions of lines   
   of code).  I'm sure it happened, but I never came across an issue with   
   naming conflicts specifically.  Misunderstanding what a particular   
   procedure actually was for, yes, but that happens even with verbosely   
   named procedures, especially if the documentation/help system is   
   substandard.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)