While I do like me some good meta-reasoning, at least I have an argument for shorter function names:
Short names are read in O(1) while longer are O(n) (unless the name can be simplified as “the function with the long name”)
Then you need to shorten your comment! Not as verbose as my replies but it can definitely use some improvement on the big Oh! Try this out for size:
> me like metareason, me have arg for short func name: Short name O(1), long are O(n) (some name too long: “the function with the long name”)
There's where your logic breaks down. If you truly followed the O(N) argument for all your communication mediums outside of programming you'd sound not so intelligent. Likely you built this argument as a response rather then actually followed it in both your English and programming communication styles.
It's probably not worth continuing here, seeing that you're already pretty hostile.
But I definitely try to minimize the amount of reading necessary to understand a concept. Ideally, the concept should be such that it's easy to describe in few words (note "words", not "letters". Also, using many words doesn't make you sound smarter, often it's the opposite). Things don't live in a vacuum, there's always a context, and that's important to consider when communicating...
> me like metareason, me have arg for short func name: Short name O(1), long are O(n) (some name too long: “the function with the long name”)
There's where your logic breaks down. If you truly followed the O(N) argument for all your communication mediums outside of programming you'd sound not so intelligent. Likely you built this argument as a response rather then actually followed it in both your English and programming communication styles.
Better re-examine that meta-reasoning.