Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

On 30 déc, 10:31, Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauh...@maps.futureapps.de>
wrote:
> Are you certain that the removal of abstraction---by adding
> type properties to object names---will help when trying to
> understand a program?  It might rather give the quick reader
> the impression of understanding the program from just a look
> at the objects' names, I think.  An illusion, most likely,
> for how could you make meaningful changes to a program by
> knowing just little things like "this is a tagged type" from
> looking at object names?

You are right in some way, as this idea came into my mind while I was
modifying an application which is not mine. So indeed, there may be
some reason to assert this is simply too much quickly said, on a time
where one feel lost and simply do not know enough.

OTOH, there must be a obvious starting point to this understanding,
and this suggested idea may be one after all. Or else (or moreover), I
feel a bit like tagged types and other types does not belong to the
same kind of abstraction any way.

Nevertheless, I will think about the potential Illusion you pointed to
me.