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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 11440e,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid11440e,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-25 06:52:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!btnet-peer0!btnet!grolier!newsfeed.planete.net!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:34:15 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9eln0p$24p$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3B0DBD4A.82943473@my-deja.net> <9ekrc2$hk0$1@news.fsu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 990797657 2201 136.170.200.133 (25 May 2001 13:34:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2001 13:34:17 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ruby:9904 comp.lang.ada:7768 comp.lang.awk:2596 comp.lang.clarion:20337 comp.lang.java.programmer:70703 comp.lang.pl1:636 comp.lang.vrml:3319 Date: 2001-05-25T13:34:17+00:00 List-Id: If you're going to have an arbitrary and capricious limit on identifier length, then 42 is a better number than 31. One can argue all day about programming style. Hemmingway had a very different writing style when compared to James Joyce. (And we can compare the both of them to Douglas Adams if you like.:-) Were both good writers? While the analogy doesn't hold across all cases, consider that it is possible to write good programs with short identifiers and with long identifiers. Which to use and when may be a matter of the project at hand and the style chosen for the project. (Short shell scripts probably don't need extensive naming conventions but multi-million SLOC rocket control systems will probably benefit if all identifiers are not restricted to 6 characters.) I think that engineers have to make some stylistic choices when undertaking a particular project, and those choices will have tradeoffs. It would be wrong for a language to force you to *never* use identifiers longer than 6 (or 31) characters. Computers are big. If you're going to have an arbitrary limitation for ease of implementation, why not make it 256? Nobody is likely to complain that they can't write code because the identifiers they use need to be bigger than that. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Steve Bellenot" wrote in message news:9ekrc2$hk0$1@news.fsu.edu... > While 31 is arbitrary and obviously ``wrong'' for not being 0, 1 or > infinity, I must agree that identifiers longer that most Russian novels > are worst. [Especially to those of us who have worked with people who > indent 2 spaces at a time, use a 132 column editor and consider the > whitespace as a goal to fill.] That is there must be some number n > where the pain of seeing identifiers of length > n is worst than the > pain of having to make all identifers have length <= n. It is more > likely that the answer is 42, but it could be 31.