Post History

Personally, I don't like the first form (initCanDriver) at all.

The routine name is supposed to present some information as to where/how the routine fits into the larger software world.  Information is best presented in global to local context order.  This is because the local information often makes no sense outside of its context hierarchy.

To me, "CanDriverInit" or "CanDriver_init" is much better.  It also has the advantage that all the CAN driver routines will show up in a sorted list next to each other.  That can be useful.

I think the concept behind "CDR_init" is OK, but the implementation is lacking.  Only three letters to indicate the package or library is too cryptic.  In this case, someone seeing just "CDR" won't have much of a guess what the library is about, and there is a significant possibility of a name collision in the future.  "CANDR" would already be much better in my opinion.

I do appreciate the effort to minimize gratuitous typing somewhat.  Long routine names distract the mind to get the name right instead of what the code is supposed to do at that point, and reduce the space for end of line comments.

In the end, it's a judgement call based on how you value the various tradeoffs.  There is no universal right answer.  Personally, I like the "CanDriverXxx" or "CanDriver_xxx" naming schemes, but wouldn't be too opposed to "CANDR_xxx" or "CanDr_xxx".  I'd really not like "CDR_xxx".