1. You are applying the ad-hominem fallacy: calling something a name something doesn't remove its value. The reason I didn't point to this label is to avoid peo

1. You are applying the ad-hominem fallacy: calling something a name something doesn't remove its value. The reason I didn't point to this label is to avoid people applying the same fallacy and tuning out before considering the merits of the solution. 2. This is the App-style notation. Notice how 'count' is used to indicate quantity not 'int'. You can see all app-style suffixes listed in the article. 3. I'm not the only one to come to these conclusions. From the Wikipedia article you provided: * Steve McConnell: "... the basic idea of standardizing on terse, precise abbreviations continues to have value. Standardized prefixes allow you to check types accurately ..." * Bjarne Stroustrup: "... a technique that can be useful in untyped languages ... [like JS]" * Joel Spolsky: "... There's still a tremendous amount of value to Apps Hungarian, in that it increases collocation in code, which makes the code easier to read, write, debug and maintain, and, most importantly, it makes wrong code look wrong..." 4. this is a sensible, simple, and very light-weight approach to resolve a real problem that is especially pronounced with JS. It has been use for over a decade to manage code and teams and it works very well. What naming convention do you instead suggest for JS?