> It is very common for functional programmers to write functions as a composition of other functions, never mentioning the actual arguments they will be applied to.
https://wiki.haskell.org/Pointfree
> We are going to use named variables to keep track of the arguments, then write a definition without them.
Personally, I think that depends, so I like to challenge my own assumptions and examine things case by case. The implementation of a math equation, especially one that is the result of solving a different equation, and so went through a symbolic/algebraic transformation, that is one place where adding more names might not clarify the implementation.
In general, though, my personal experience has been one of not seeing things named enough. Specifically, feature creep in software tends to try to add code with a light touch without disturbing too much of the surrounding code, but with new concepts that deserve more naming than they get. This can and does lead to code that is difficult to maintain, and I think I’ve seen more of that mistake than of naming things too much, and I suspect it’s much easier to not just shoot yourself in the foot, but cut your leg off, by under-naming rather than by over-naming.