So then why don't you believe me when I tell you that all of these variable names are extremely standard, and will be familiar to anyone who has written deep learning code before?
I feel like you both have good points. Yes, a lot of the variables are very ML specific and often called that way. However, I feel like that encourages the same researchers (who are obviously not software engineers) to give the rest of their variables sub-par names as well. Why would you give any variable a name longer than a word even, if so many you regularly encounter are just `w`, `u`, `x`, `hparam` ... and so on.
I'm a software engineer with a background in ML, so even though I somewhat know the domain language I still get mad at the blatant disrespect for PEP-8. That being said, this one is definitely one of the better codebases I have come across. This feels like it could be fairly easily worked with and understood. I have seen far, far worse code to go along research papers.
So then why don't you believe me when I tell you that all of these variable names are extremely standard, and will be familiar to anyone who has written deep learning code before?