Those two are obviously GetExtendedMemoryMap and Saxophone.

Very loosely related, but I really dislike the excepted design pattern for that cases where functions names are something like AssertThatOnePlusOneIsReturnAlwaysTwoAndNeverFive. It looks ridiculous, smells like a hack, and I cannot think of any reason why giving a description of the test couldn't be handled by the testing framework in a more graceful way.

Me too, I prefer function names like “assert_that_one_plus_one_is_return_always_two_and_never_five.”

All kidding aside, but I gave up on this argument because I think people either get it or don’t and aside from trying a little conversation or something with guidance it’s a “can’t fix stupid” situation.

People usually want to explain why it’s so important and that’s worse than suffering their long function name.

I think it’s better to just accept ridiculous than to try to get consensus on what’s ridiculous and a spiral of wasted time.

The upside is that it doesn’t matter any more since long function names are supported and work. And autocomplete means it’s just as easy to use as “ATOPOIRA” or whatever madness they would name it with some restrictions.

When it comes to file names, I disagree that brevity serves a useful purpose. I name my files like I’m an Amazon reseller so that I’m sure to find it with Search later no matter which detail I remember. “Budget Spreadsheet (worked on with Jane) with projections with and without buying a new Tesla Model Y or Chevy Chevrolet Bolt - 2023 2024 2025.xlsx” that’s my idea of a file name.

If it floats your boat, you do you my dude.

But that being said, you're the reason why file systems are abstracted away more and more with all file system queries force fed through some kind of search engine.

> you're the reason why file systems are abstracted away more and more

Citation needed. I'm pretty sure the reason that happened is that Gen Z (and heck, definitely a good chunk of my millennial generation too) weren't ever taught what files and directories even are, so for them to be able to manage, product designers moved to a combo of "Your documents live inside the app you made them with" and "You search for your documents and they'll come up." Notably though, they never solved the other problems the filesystem solves, such as "but where are my files actually, I need to move them between devices or give them to another person."

Modern OSes can search within files for text, which mostly obviates using the filename for keywords.

They can also search images for subjects, location, etc.

Still, it would have been nice if a standard metadata format could be included with each file, in a way that survives file transfers.

I bet there are some that do a good job, but my "modern" OS (hint: it's the one that probably has 10x the engineers working on 'cool' UI animations than on the search backend) is absolute trash at relevance when searching contents. Not to mention slow.

A spotlight search for Chevy I get every document on my system that ever mentioned Chevy in random order. Maybe 1000 documents (or 10,000 if it helpfully decides to pull in e-mail, and thus picks up 9,000 marketing emails). If I search names for Chevy I am going to find the file I mentioned and any others where a human decided the file was about a Chevy. Same for Jane. If that's my partner, adding her name will just pull in every document that's ever mentioned her, like every tax form ever. But files named after her is a much smaller set.

Hahaha! That’s my idea of a file name, too!

I agree with that too. If it works it’s like ideograms or iconography.

Woah, your examples: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/essl/6.2?topic=vss-saxpy-daxpy-c...