1. RE: Aesthetically pleasing identifier names
- Posted by "D. Brent O'Gara" <D_Brent_OGara at comcast.net>
Mar 04, 2005
-
Last edited Mar 05, 2005
I went through the exact same evolution myself. And while I don't code
much, I use the BumpyCaps (or CamelCaps, if you prefer) paradigm for all
my naming convention needs. As someone whose primary computer use is 3D
modeling and animation, It lets me find what I need even when it's
buried in a list of 500 similar objects. I also try to be obsessive
about directory structure and file placement, so that a finger morph can
always be found under World-> Figure-> HandRight-> IndexFinger-> Morphs.
(For example) While most programmers don't spend all day with meshes
and morphs, the paradigm holds true for code and libraries as well.
When I was first starting out, everything went into the same directory,
all with names like RHF2.obj... and that is a recipe for disaster.
So yes, I think organization and structure are great things, (and yet I
love Euphoria for letting me throw everything into one Sequence) and
Your name is pretty cool too.
-Brent O'
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent W. Hughes [mailto:guest at RapidEuphoria.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:01 PM
To: EUforum at topica.com
Subject: Aesthetically pleasing identifier names
posted by: Brent W. Hughes <bwh566 at yahoo.com>
When I was a young and tender programmer, if I wanted to declare a
function to, say, set a menu bar to a certain value, I would probably
name the function something like "smb" which of course, stood for "set
menu bar".
After a few years, I decided that that was not very self-documenting, so
I would name such a variable "setmenubar". This made the code more
readable and was worth the extra typing.
Sometime later, I saw people using underscores in their identifier
names, and I decided to give that a try. My function would hence be
called "set_menu_bar".
Still years later, I began to see people using case to separate the
individual words in an identifier name. I tried it. My function would
now be called "SetMenuBar". I found my code to be more readable and
much more aesthetically pleasing. In fact, I have become a convert to
this way of naming identifiers. As a convert, I am now trying to get
others to see the light so that it will be easier to read their code.
What do you think?
Brent
2. RE: Aesthetically pleasing identifier names
Agreed. I do so.
Regards.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brent W. Hughes <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
To: <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:01 PM
Subject: Aesthetically pleasing identifier names
>
>
> posted by: Brent W. Hughes <bwh566 at yahoo.com>
>
> When I was a young and tender programmer, if I wanted to declare a
function to, say, set a menu bar to a certain value, I would probably name
the function something like "smb" which of course, stood for "set menu bar".
>
> After a few years, I decided that that was not very self-documenting, so I
would name such a variable "setmenubar". This made the code more readable
and was worth the extra typing.
>
> Sometime later, I saw people using underscores in their identifier names,
and I decided to give that a try. My function would hence be called
"set_menu_bar".
>
> Still years later, I began to see people using case to separate the
individual words in an identifier name. I tried it. My function would now
be called "SetMenuBar". I found my code to be more readable and much more
aesthetically pleasing. In fact, I have become a convert to this way of
naming identifiers. As a convert, I am now trying to get others to see the
light so that it will be easier to read their code.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
