You'll get a lot of the benefits simply by being really disciplined about being consistent and precise with how you refer to things. What Hungarian does is force you to out of necessity.
Not a good idea for code that you want people to be able to use without gaining a deep understanding of, but for collaborating on inventing new things, it's a very effective communication hack.
That same timeframe we ported Word's codebase from C to C++. That meant rewriting a bunch of manually ordered vtables for COM as regular virtual member functions on classes, and sadly, the elimination of anonymous unions from the codebase. But, type systems have really taken over and I think that's a good thing.
Because Word was written in C it followed a beautiful pattern of functions calling other functions all the way down. It treated data as data, and did not utilize classes or inheritance. I later came to understand the value of that way of thinking but at the time I thought it was so old fashioned. Of course, lacking the OO mindset meant that Word also lacked a great deal of encapsulation, and had horrible coupling across certain modules. Most notably, Undo, and Display.
I suppose that's enough reminiscing for now.
To see complete and total saturation of that concept, take a look at the source code of Urbit
I can confirm this is roughly what the intentional source code looked like.
Personally I found it a huge pain and an unnecessary difficulty, but opinions differed :). The bigger problem was a lot of the code was crap (yay research code!). The lack of english names only made this more difficult because it removed valuable clues as to what the intention of the author might have been.