isFollowingCamelCaseConventionInCPlusPlus more_import_than_readability?
Question: I'm moving back from Python to C++ for my next project.  
I know [why I shouldn't](http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/) and I know [why I
should](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3175072/performance-of-c-vs-
virtual-machine-languages-in-high-frequency-finance). Never mind that debate.

[C++
conventionForVariablesIsCamelCase](http://geosoft.no/development/cppstyle.html#Naming%20Conventions)AndI'mHavingTrouble[AcceptingIt](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/608443/underscore-
or-camelcase) as,
at_least_for_my_eyes_it's_less_readable_than_the_lower_case_underscored_convention.

Did any of you encounter an article or information claiming programmers should
adopt lower_case_underscored convention and abandon the camelCase, even in C++
projects? Or perhaps research that shows that one is indeed scientifically
more readable than the other?


Answer: If coding in a team, consistency is probably more important than personal
preference; team members should not have to context switch between reading
Joe's code and reading Jane's code. Equally if coding academic assignments,
course style like team style should be adhered to (for right or wrong), simply
because the person awarding the marks will be used to reading that, and you
need to extract the best possible mark for your work!

I would suggest otherwise that one convention has little advantage over
another. CamelCase does provide a certain efficiency of symbol length.

