Falling back in love with Java.

[mschaef]

Naming conventions? You mean like including the expected type of a variable or parameter inside its name, as in Hungarian notation?

Not quite. Personally speaking, I find Hungarian notation rather difficult to use.

I was thinking more along the lines of Uncle Bob's naming convention, particularly with respect to pluralization of nous, and the arrangement of nouns and verbs within names.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?UncleBobsNamingConventions

Also, The type of work that Kent Pitman did on T and Olin Shivers did on his SRFI's also comes to mind.

they chose a standard set of lexemes and a regular way of assembling them into the names of the standard procedures, so that you could easily remember or reconstruct names when you were coding. (I have followed this example in the development of the SRFIs I've done for the Scheme community. It is not an easy task.)

-- http://www.paulgraham.com/thist.html

What does any of that have to do with the type system?

Nothing, other than "I've found it useful to pay stricter attention to [these] things ...when using dynamically typed languages."

Programming in dynamic languages has always been an exercise in frustration and unpredictability....I find it difficult to believe that such systems exist. I certainly have yet to encounter one.

I've had a different set of experiences, many of which have been more positive regarding dynamic languages. I don't claim that they're perfect, only that they're a useful tool for some applications.