Excessively long struct name in rna-transcription

[shingtaklam1324]

Currently, the struct names are DeoxyribonucleicAcid and RibonucleicAcid, which seem way too long and doesn't provide any useful information that DNA and RNA wouldn't provide to people without Biology / Chemistry backgrounds.

Proposed Change

DeoxyribonucleicAcid => DNA
RibonucleicAcid => RNA

[coriolinus]

DeoxyribonucleicAcid is 20 chars. Do you have a reference for that being too long?

[shingtaklam1324]

It's not that it is that long but rather that the extra information in the extended name doesn't do anything

[petertseng]

I think I usually keep code identifiers close to how I would speak, and when speaking it's very likely I only say DNA and RNA. Counterexample: I've broken that rule, since I sometimes name variables similarly to dist, pos, col, len. Maybe my rule only works in one direction: my identifiers are no longer than how I would speak, but they might be shorter???

[coriolinus]

There are pressures in both directions. In a world where autocompleting code editors are ubiquitous, I often find that the clarity of a longer name more than offsets the slight additional typing burden it imposes. I'm very likely to name things with a short phrase when I can't think of a sufficiently descriptive single word; I'm somewhat less likely to abbreviate things unless there's a convention in favor of doing so.

That said, I agree that "DNA" and "RNA" are well-understood enough that there should be no real problem using those abbreviations instead of spelling everything out. However, I have no particular interest in doing the necessary work myself. @shingtaklam1324 are you interested in contributing a PR to make that change?