> If you're a seasoned Java developer you look at an `AbstractDestinationResolvingMessageTemplate` and you just know what it does. I'm not kidding.

This claim is so bad.

You could look at the name AbstractDestinationResolvingMessageTemplate and the useful information they would be gaining is that it's a message template. They would still not know how to use it; they'd still have to do an additional step like checking the documentation on its usage etc. The amount of useful information to text is small and it doesnt help.

I didn't say that you would know how to use it. You don't need to know, the framework uses it. What I said is that you would know _what_ it is if you ever get an exception from that class.

I'm 95% sure that all those people complaining about Spring never read the reference documentation. I did, and whenever I bump into a problem I have an idea about how to solve it. Besides reading it only takes a few days and you're set for years.

Why do anybody expect to be able to work with a technology if they don't bother reading the documentation? This is like complaining about not being able to drive a car when you sit down in the seat without training.

What's your definition of 'know'? It's very common to have surface level knowledge of the class only to dive in and see that it does something else. So do you 'know' the code as well as you thought so? Probably not. Fact of the matter is you can't magically 'know' everything about a class based off a class name. And this includes your 'seasoned Java developers'.

You're throwing out some very large assumptions as well.