This style of naming is common on everything Apple, all their APIs and SDKs and most things in Objective-C/Swift are verbose like this, it’s on purpose.

I personally quite like it, but it can be jarring for people coming from other languages.

I’m a big proponent of verbose naming, but I suppose I should say in this context that I generally have a negative preference for terse naming. There are some exceptions to that preference, usually deferring to idiomatic usage, e.g.:

- i or idx is often preferred over index

- fn or fun is often used where function is a reserved word

That said, I’m also cognitively sensitive to column width. I’m not “80 columns or fight”, but I definitely find longer lines of code challenging to follow. As such I prefer to balance verbosity by deferring to the context (lexical scope, imported module name/hierarchy, file name/path, general contextual assumptions that you’d already need to be effective in the codebase).

I find both extremes jarring, and there’s usually an opportunity to optimize for both local understanding and reading without reaching those extremes (of course at the expense of keystrokes/autocomplete pitfalls, but once you’ve embraced verbosity at any level that’s assumed).

Indeed, the use of standardized mnemonics and abbreviations rather than this kind of extreme verbosity is the key to code readability.

when it’s commonly understood!

I don't particularly mind it, but it does invoke unwelcome memories of sifting through an endless purgatory of PowerShell parameters...

Because VZLinuxBootLoader and VZMacOSBootLoader are two different implementations of VZBootLoader.

ok thanks, that does make sense.

I tried macOS in Parallels and it was _awful_. Significantly worse than Windows 11 ARM and Ubuntu ARM. It seemed like it had zero acceleration. Very poor experience. I just used the wizard to install it so I didn't do anything weird.

Are you using Big Sur or newer for the host and guest? If so you should have hardware accelerated graphics which made a huge difference over Catalina.

I haven't run anything heavy and used it to isolate some work stuff.

I thought Parallels would be using the MacOS virtualization framework? If not, it will be interesting to compare how other systems perform.

I use Parallels often. You can choose to use either their own hypervisor or Apple’s. I haven’t compared them though, Apple’s is working fine for me.

From what I hear, Parallels has out approximately zero effort into their Virtualization implementation, to the point where a toy I whipped up over the weekend has better usability than it does.

I tried too, and the word was "abysmal."

Be thankful for “MacOS”.