I think there are 2 claims which this article conflates. I'll jokingly call them "Weak Whitney" and "Strong Whitney".
"Weak Whitney" is the claim that this very terse style is comprehensible given sufficient study. I find this plausible.
"Strong Whitney" is the claim that in many circumstances this style is _better_ than a more normal style, with full variable names, whitespace, etc. I am much less persuaded by that claim. When the article says things like "Note that d probably stands for “dimension” or perhaps “depth”; I’m unsure on this point." I'm like, yes, congratulations, that is exactly the point of using more descriptive names and/or comments.
"Weak Whitney" is the claim that this very terse style is comprehensible given sufficient study. I find this plausible.
"Strong Whitney" is the claim that in many circumstances this style is _better_ than a more normal style, with full variable names, whitespace, etc. I am much less persuaded by that claim. When the article says things like "Note that d probably stands for “dimension” or perhaps “depth”; I’m unsure on this point." I'm like, yes, congratulations, that is exactly the point of using more descriptive names and/or comments.