I agree completely - field type-naming conventions has saved me a ton of time.

>This subject looks like an ideal candidate for a survey:
>Q 1: Which of the following do you think should include a letter indicating data type:
> - Variable names.
> - Properties.
> - Field Names.

All three.
Variables should also include scope - "lc" for "local character", e.g.

I hold to a functional naming convention for field names - e.g., in VFP, we would have a logical field, ergo use lField. In SQL Server and Oracle, there is no logical field. You must some other type of field - I've seen numeric and character in both and bit and tinyint in SQL Server. I prefer bit in SS and number(1,0) in Oracle. However, I still use lField for the name. This is a stretch for some, but w/in a system, the convention would be known that "we use tinyint for logical fields", or "we use char(1) with 'Y' and 'N' for logical fields."

>Q 2: How many years experience do you have? This would be good if it could show how much of the experience was associated with looking after either legacy systems or systems written by someone else. Developers who are forever working on green field (AKA blue sky) projects, and never get involved in supporting those systems have opinions (in my opinion) that are borderline worthless.

6 years - not as much as some, but all in large scale, complex applications using VFP, SS and/or Oracle
Also, it's all been in team development environments, another good reason for naming conventions.