Why Naming Conventions Break Faster Than ACLs

[Abhijeet Upadh2]

Naming conventions are one of the first things architects define and one of the first things delivery teams quietly abandon.

In theory, naming standards bring clarity, consistency, and easier support. In practice, they depend almost entirely on human discipline, which is fragile under real delivery pressure. When deadlines tighten, people shorten names, copy existing patterns without understanding them, or bypass conventions altogether just to keep work moving.

ACLs, interestingly, tend to survive much longer. The reason is simple: ACLs are enforced by the platform and tied to immediate consequences. Naming conventions rely on goodwill, memory, and consistency—none of which scale particularly well.

I’ve seen organisations respond to naming chaos by introducing stricter rules: longer prefixes, more categories, more documentation. This almost always backfires. The more complex a convention becomes, the less likely it is to be followed consistently. Complexity doesn’t create discipline; it creates avoidance.

The naming strategies that actually work at scale are deliberately simple and purpose-driven. They optimise for readability and intent, not theoretical completeness. Just as importantly, they have clear ownership. When someone is accountable for maintaining naming standards, they’re more likely to be applied consistently.

Architectural discipline isn’t about perfect naming. It’s about naming that survives pressure, turnover, and time. If a convention can’t hold up during a tight sprint or a production issue, it was never sustainable in the first place.