Editing Camel case (section)

== Readability studies ==
Camel case has been criticized as negatively impacting readability due to the removal of spaces and uppercasing of every word.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/magazine/29FOB-onlanguage-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&|newspaper=New York Times|title=Against Camel Case|author=Caleb Crain|date=23 November 2009}}</ref>

A 2009 study of 135 subjects comparing [[snake case]] (underscored identifiers) to camel case found that camel case identifiers were recognized with higher accuracy among all subjects. Subjects recognized snake case identifiers more quickly than camel case identifiers. Training in camel case sped up camel case recognition and slowed snake case recognition, although this effect involved coefficients with high [[p-value]]s. The study also conducted a subjective survey and found that non-programmers either preferred underscores or had no preference, and 38% of programmers trained in camel case stated a preference for underscores. However, these preferences had no statistical correlation to accuracy or speed when controlling for other variables.<ref>{{cite journal|title=To CamelCase or Under_score|author1=Dave Binkley|author2=Marcia Davis|author3=Dawn Lawrie|author4=Christopher Morrell|citeseerx=10.1.1.158.9499|publisher=IEEE|pages=158–167|journal=IEEE 17th International Conference on Program Comprehension, 2009. ICPC '09.|year=2009|quote=The experiment builds on past work of others who study how readers of natural language perform such tasks. Results indicate that camel casing leads to higher accuracy among all subjects regardless of training, and those trained in camel casing are able to recognize identifiers in the camel case style faster than identifiers in the underscore style.}}</ref>

A 2010 follow-up study used a similar study design with 15 subjects consisting of expert programmers trained primarily in snake case. It used a static rather than animated stimulus and found perfect accuracy in both styles except for one incorrect camel case response. Subjects recognized identifiers in snake case more quickly than camel case. The study used eye-tracking equipment and found that the difference in speed for its subjects was primarily due to the fact that average duration of [[Fixation (visual)|fixations]] for camel-case was significantly higher than that of snake case for 3-part identifiers. The survey recorded a mixture of preferred identifier styles but again there was no correlation of preferred style to accuracy or speed.<ref>{{cite book |id=([http://www.cs.kent.edu/~jmaletic/papers/ICPC2010-CamelCaseUnderScoreClouds.pdf download PDF]) |author1=Bonita Sharif|author2=Jonathan I. Maletic |title=2010 IEEE 18th International Conference on Program Comprehension |chapter=An Eye Tracking Study on camelCase and under_score Identifier Styles |publisher=IEEE |pages=196–205 |year=2010 |quote=An empirical study to determine if identifier-naming conventions (i.e., camelCase and under_score) affect code comprehension is presented. An eye tracker is used to capture quantitative data from human subjects during an experiment. The intent of this study is to replicate a previous study published at ICPC 2009 (Binkley et al.) that used a timed response test method to acquire data. The use of eye-tracking equipment gives additional insight and overcomes some limitations of traditional data gathering techniques. Similarities and differences between the two studies are discussed. One main difference is that subjects were trained mainly in the underscore style and were all programmers. While results indicate no difference in accuracy between the two styles, subjects recognize identifiers in the underscore style more quickly.|doi=10.1109/ICPC.2010.41 |citeseerx=10.1.1.421.6137 |isbn=978-1-4244-7604-6 |s2cid=14170019 }}</ref>