CamelCase versus wide_names (Prothon)

[Lothar Scholz]

"Mark Hahn" <mark at prothon.org> wrote in message news:<UHxfc.9323$dZ1.3740 at fed1read04>...
> We have agreed in Prothon that unlike Python we are going to be 100%
> consistant in our var and method naming.  We will not have run-together
> words like iteritems, we are going to always have seperated words like
> has_key.
> 
> Now we are in the midst of a discussion of camelCase versus wide_names.  So
> far our arguments are:
> 
> 1) CamelCase is more elegant, modern, more readable, and more efficient in
> character usage.
> 
> 2) Wide_names is cleaner, more readable, compatible with C, which is the
> standard module language for Python and Prothon.  Wide_names is also the
> Python standard.
> 
> Of course in the Python world you alread have wide_names as your standard,
> but could you for the moment pretend you were picking your standard from
> scratch (as we are doing in the Prothon world) and give your vote for which
> you'd prefer?

After writing a few hundert thousands lines of code in Eiffel and a
few ten thousands lines in Java i must say that lowercase wide_names
are much much better to read. Someone else already mentioned this
problem:

   smtp_message <-> SMTPMessage <-> SmtpMessage