The author seems to criticize that the Java classes are named for how they're implemented, whereas the CoreFoundation ones are named for what they are instead.

The author seems to criticize that the Java classes are named for how they're implemented, whereas the CoreFoundation ones are named for what they are instead. In Java, though, the convention (at least in the Collection library), is that the Interface name tells you what the thing is (List, Map, Set), and the class name tells you how it's implemented (ArrayList/LinkedList, HashMap/ConcurrentMap, HashSet/TreeSet).