> it says that the author is out of touch with the community and the commonly followed standards Maybe. I suspect your interpretation may be the common one (w

> it says that the author is out of touch with the community and the commonly followed standards Maybe. I suspect your interpretation may be the common one (which may be reason enough to follow the convention) but it is certainly possible that the author is aware of the convention and consciously chooses to ignore it. If other code-quality signals (does it work? does it build? is there a demo/quick-start? is it tested? documented? readable? not re-invent the wheel? follow relevant architectural and organizational idioms, etc.) are there, this seems to me to be the more likely scenario, especially given this particular convention (which is somewhat controversial). For what it's worth, I feel I'm pretty well versed in the JavaScript community standards and conventions and yet like the author I commonly follow an underscore_based_naming_convention rather than aCamelCaseOne in JavaScript/CoffeeScript (even in open source projects). There are some studies [1] that suggest that the underscore version is more readable in general, but I've seen earlier studies that come to the opposite conclusion. For me it comes down to personal preference -- I find underscore-based-names more readable and easier to remember (e.g. `http_client` vs `httpClient` vs `HTTPClient` etc) -- but I concede it's essentially a matter of taste. I'm not trying to convince you that underscores are better, just that the use of underscores in JavaScript isn't as directly related to code quality as you seem to assume. [1] http://www.cs.kent.edu/~jmaletic/papers/ICPC2010-CamelCaseUnderScoreClouds.pdf http://www.cs.kent.edu/~jmaletic/papers/ICPC2010-CamelCaseUn...