John nailed it when he implied this is something people care about more than they realize. I wasn't that excited by the topic but I really enjoyed listening to it and even "rewound" it in a couple of places. Thanks so much!

Matt Navarre's conventions are strikingly similar to my own - therefore he must be right. One of the things I think you missed in discussing field naming conventions is how table width (related to normalization) influences your conventions. If your tables are fairly narrow (mine are typically a dozen fields or less) I believe you'll find a lot of the metadata people tend to add to their field names less useful and somewhat distracting. You also find, for better or for worse, that the table and table occurrence names take on somewhat greater importance.

To be fair to Matt P., I also use his dot convention for variable and object names. For both I typically use object.name as my notation. For variables within scripts, where they are typically used to store field values, this ends up being table.fieldName. For layout objects these end up being objectType.objectName (e.g. field.zipCode or tabPanel.Customers).

Seriously, the podcast is getting much better. Maybe you can dedicate an episode for Matt P. to exorcise all of the silliness and bad jokes, I think that would make the podcast top notch. That's not to say the podcast should be all serious; I think it's good to be lighthearted as long as it doesn't get distracting.