Imagine you were tasked with implementing a linked-list in, let's say 'C', but anything really.

So you choose 'cell' as your name for a node. OK, that's .. fine.

Now you choose 'car' and 'cdr' for each cell's 'data pointer' and 'next-cell-in-list pointer'. How many 'WTF?s'* do you think you'd get in code review? (except from lispers, I guess)

* obviously it's a rhetorical question, no-one writes or says WTF (out loud) in actual code reviews I hope.

> Now you choose 'car' and 'cdr' for each cell's 'data pointer' and 'next-cell-in-list pointer'. How many 'WTF?s'* do you think you'd get in code review?

Your names are too verbose.

Cons cells aren't a linked list.

struct node_t* node

node->data

node->next

Zero "WTF"s

Except those names are wrong in some contexts. That's the point.

You are tasked with writing a binary tree, and you pick car and cdr ... A key-value tuple-space... Complex numbers...

The point is they are 'wrong' in every context. For LISt Processing, they should probably default to something to do with lists.

And caaar et al are a fine example of why I completely skipped common lisp in favour of newer lisp-likes. Perhaps it happens to all languages eventually, people add a convenience here, an shortcut there, and a doodad here, and before long you have an impenetrable thicket.

And these things seem convenient, but they are a huge extra cognitive load, and impose a further learning cost even to practicing experts who have to keep up with the latest doodads.