I think the parent post was attributing longFuglyCapsUnpronouncabeName type identifiers to the Java language/culture, As much as (just) the editor?
I’m biased, though. I HATE gigantic supposedly “self documenting” (but utterly impossible to actually say aloud) identifiers.
My ideal identifiers are 2, maybe 3, syllables, with dashes or underscores, with actual documentation of WHY anything visible beyond The scope of a single function is used.
For class names it might be true that long compound names are driven by auto suggestions from the IDE. But I'm wondering if they're really as bad as their reputation. Somehow it's similar as for variables. You can still come up with more meaningful names if you want but I admit that auto suggestions do more harm there.