Were you responding to @john_drivenupthewall or to some other earlier post?
Assuming the former, I have to agree with John, and I don’t think this practice has anything to do with the coder’s level of experience or knowledge of the syntax. It is all about what makes the code more readable, understandable, and easier to write. To cite the common cliche, “you write code once but read it many times later”. So, you don’t do anyone a favor by making your code cryptic.
I don’t find sensible short names such as mod, defs, ents, and sel to be cryptic (as opposed to your possibly made-up infqr and hrbnf). For me they require less mental bandwidth than more descriptive but long names (look at typical Objective-C code if you want to see that carried to the extreme!). With them the only issue I see is when there is more than one variable handling the same kind of object in the same context, in which case I agree that names such as ents1 and ents2 create needless ambiguity. And, on the other hand, unless the descriptive naming is very consistent I find myself constantly asking “oh d***, what did I name the Entities collection this time?” I note that “very consistent” is a different issue than “self-descriptive”.