>Naming conventions are *not* helping us to read the code. I've never felt that naming convention helped me in any way.

Well, your experiences with this are in diametric opposition to mine. In another message I saw one of your examples (ldInvDte) where you don't give the variable a descriptive name when using the naming convention. Naming conventions and descriptive names are not mutually exclusive. FWIW, I'd probably use ldInvoice in that case. Inv is ambiguous (ie, could be "Inventory" or "Invoice" or perhaps something else), and the Dte is redundant when you have a type designator.

>Whether or not using naming conventions, I still should know when, why and what a variable could/should contain. You can't tell this story with naming conventions.

Ideally, that (knowing when, what, why) should be the case, but pragmatically, it is not. I doubt anyone has ever said that a naming convention tells the whole story. Rather, it tells you enough to save you some time here and there. Naming conventions clearly add value for alot of programmers, otherwise they would not be so widely used. I'll agree they may not be quite as effective if you're not using descriptive names as well.