Rename Variable, Function, and Contract names Sensibly

[daweth]

The naming conventions in the DSS contracts lack common sense.

The purpose of names are to describe the behavior of the function or variable. On a more local scale more general names such as "item", "vat", etc. are fine. But the high level naming of DSS are absolutely absurd.

Without docs, this code would be very difficult to decipher

I propose a complete renaming of the contracts andfunctions that actually reflect their function, rather than random "cat" and "dog" contracts

[brianmcmichael]

https://nikolai.fyi/purple/#sec-1-3

[daweth]

@brianmcmichael

1. "we sidestep terminological debates" by making the terminology dogs and cats
2. "we invent our own language because financial language isn't good enough and our readers can't understand it", they are less likely to understand "cat" "dog" and "bite" language (unless they are 5 years old)
3. "makes the structures easier to explain bc variables shorter", yeah you have shorter names, but the fundamental rule of naming is to make sure your code communicates what it is doing. If this is your goal why not go all the way and name the contracts "a", "b", "c", etc.?

I don't think the points made in that screenshot make any logical sense.