Absolutely not true, in any way.
And I fail to see a single reasonable argument for why writing "tk" should be better than writing "token". Just name things using real words. Cryptic abbreviation does not help anyone.
Absolutely not true, in any way.
And I fail to see a single reasonable argument for why writing "tk" should be better than writing "token". Just name things using real words. Cryptic abbreviation does not help anyone.
The same way you "grep", "ls" or "cd" --- it easily becomes as natural as any other language, unless you consciously try to stop yourself from learning.
You could just not do that, and be happier. Why add the extra indirection?
Why do humans abbreviate?
The names are not only read but also being manipulated in your mind. You will see tons of `token`s and `type`s throughout the code and while you can read them fine you will have hard time dealing with them in your mind. For uncommon names that are usually read out of the context, longer names are preferred. For common names or local enough names, short mnemonics that evoke the original name really help. When it is not possible, people usually develop a specialized terminology for them.
The only issue is that if you are writing gigantic statements with lots of variables, it gets too long to see properly. And that is a sign that you are writing too large expressions, and need to start cutting them into smaller parts anyway.
But arbitrary abbreviations like "tk" don't fall into this category.
If you are okay with X and Y, you should probably have to accept that the definition of "commonly used", "well established" and "actual, proper" words is subjective and different areas and projects have different notions of them. I'm okay with `tk` if it is used consistently and doesn't interfere otherwise.
Anyway, you can always use an array `coordinates` with whatever dimensions you want.
ls just simply stands for list
The source of my favorite C compiler, on the other hand: