>>
>>You can't deny the fact that dog, DOG, Dog, and DoG still give you the idea of a dog.
>
>Yes you can recognize it as a dog eventually but it requires extra effort. Why is it a good thing in programming language?

Extra effort? Not really. The very safe assumption here is that the differences you might find are minor. Programmers won't code MyVariableName like MyVariableName, MYVARiableNAme, MyvaraiBLEName, MYVAriABLENAMe, etc. What I see a lot is just something like cust_no and Cust_No. This takes a lot of brainpower?

>
>>This is the way our brains developed over millenia.
>
>I guess you're expert in human brain so I wouldn't argue with you here.

Instead of being flippant, you could show me some research that disputes that.

>
>>It is much better to create a clearer naming convention to address such issues.
>
>And how case-sensitive languages impede that? I believe all of them have such conventions.

What CS languages cause are stupid problems with nit-picky details. Not all of the CS languages have tools like Intellisense to remove the issue, so it's more problematic in something like JavaScript. I love the attitude . . . let's take a problem and instead of removing the problem, let's create a tool to treat the symptoms of the problem.

>> I like Donald Knuth's idea of literate programming.
>
>How case-sensitive languages do not fit in it from your POV ?

If literate programming is to write programs for people and not computers and if you still understand I'm speaking to you when I write sergey instead of Sergey, the I would think that a literate program would be forgiving on this issue, but perhaps Knuth has other ideas.