I beg to differ. Having dealt with the insanity of abbreviated variables/field names in cancer research, I can tell you that abbreviations often (1) do not immediately indicate what the actual underlying field is, and/or (2) will mislead, especially when variants are involved.
I don't find your second example exhausting to read at all - in fact I find it far _easier_ to read, especially to an astute reader (who is trying to make sense of a particular scientific literature).
No person will have any idea what `z = A*x-y` could mean 'in context', when it's so damn abstract of a reference.
Brevity in variable names is horrendous when cross-checking against papers. It is also a waste of time for scientists to reiterate what the legends/variable names mean, especially when their code could have used clear, unambiguous, verbose names instead.
I don't find your second example exhausting to read at all - in fact I find it far _easier_ to read, especially to an astute reader (who is trying to make sense of a particular scientific literature).
No person will have any idea what `z = A*x-y` could mean 'in context', when it's so damn abstract of a reference.
Brevity in variable names is horrendous when cross-checking against papers. It is also a waste of time for scientists to reiterate what the legends/variable names mean, especially when their code could have used clear, unambiguous, verbose names instead.