From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,25d835bb9a4a003f X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252 Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:11:41 +0100 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <4ae9dade$0$6551$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Oct 2009 19:11:42 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: d1844311.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=9>^Bb3G3@aU5TOT9_N5iZLh>_cHTX3j]=1Jj;C1ER;P X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8847 Date: 2009-10-29T19:11:42+01:00 List-Id: Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne) schrieb: > There is on the other hand, this other convention, which came from > Pascal I suppose : the one which ends types name with the suffix _Type If you can't find a name for an object, ask more questions about it, its use, its relations, the programmer, its purpose, his purpose, etc: What is the role of the object? Does the role lead to a name? It might not, at first. For example, the role can be given as "just any object" of the type. I would not be comfortable with such an answer (though, for practical reasons, I live with it): The person who says "just any object" should be able to give a reason why "just any object" is sufficient. The reason, and in particular stating the reason using words, increases the likelyhood of finding a name expressing the reason. Or the reaons leads to other ideas which, again, lead to a name. Naming conventions always make me think of features that a language does not offer. I don't think this is the case with types and objects in Ada. > It's easy to accept large scale projects as being a proof of the > relevance of a naming convention. Microsoft's software is certainly of a larger scale. They suggested "Hungarian" notation at some point. Do they use, or suggest to use, "Hungarian" notation with .NET? I don't think so. So much for relevance of large scale. If naming conventions help with missing features, does Ada lack features that .NET offers and that need to be compensated by a _Type suffix? Mass alone, or big projects, are, IMHO, not a sign of relevance without further corroboration. Big projects can fail, too, but to define success is more likely a political issue in large projects than in small projects. Whenever success or failure involve "politics" and incomplete information, it is more difficult to attribute success or failure to reasons given or to reasons hidden. (Let alone the effects of disiring cognitve consonance...) Here is a prossible study that is much less political, yet will never happen, I think: A group of programmers, equally skillful, separates itself into two groups, along a dividing line between personal coding preferences: The first group consist of programmers who are fond of the _Type suffix, the second group consists of programmers who avoid these mechanical names. Both groups set out to solve the same problem. - Which group finishes first? - Which group can change things faster than the other? - Again? - Which group's members are better at explaining the software? Etc. The study needs to be augmented by performing it again, trying conventional alternate research setups, to make data valid and reliable. (Switching the group preference, using a third group that does not know about conventions, ...) Does such a study exist? If not, why not? The last question is the important one, I think: It costs money. It is personal (about style) and personal information is kept personal, not studied. Its findings might reflect on pride and fashion, most important aspects of all craftsmanship, a no-no when there is a risk of a negative result. A study might have as a result: Do NOT wear the ties you like so much (_Type or else wonderful names). If the result of the study must be assumed to be regulation of programming style, prohibiting personal preferences for members of one group but not the other, then is there any programmer who would want the study to happen? Is there a manager who understands the issue?