Re: Long names are doom ?

["Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com>]

I probably should have put a :-) next to that comment. See "A Hitchhikers
Guide To The Galaxy"

If you've followed my other comments in this thread, you'll know that I'm in
favor of specific projects deciding for themselves what (and even if) limits
should be imposed on identifiers. I am strongly against language & compiler
designers deciding this issue for you by placing arbitrary and capricious
limits on identifiers. (Beyond what is necessary for practical engineering
concerns. These days, if there is going to be a limit at all {and I don't
think there needs to be} it ought to stem from line lengths in source files
or be set to some really big number that in practice will never be
exceeded - like 256 or 512.)

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/


"Roedy Green" <roedy@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:cubtgtcnrrnkb1nj3khtapapse7cbsl20q@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 09:34:15 -0400, "Marin David Condic"
> <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote or quoted :
>
> >If you're going to have an arbitrary and capricious limit on identifier
> >length, then 42 is a better number than 31.
>
> You could ask it this way. Who is better able to judge whether a given
> long variable is justified, somebody versed in the project or somebody
> who has never seen it?
>
> This is a matter of style, and such a thing MIGHT be enforceable on a
> PROJECT basis.
>
> I would like it if there were lint-like tools that guarded the
> repository.  They would beautify code to project standards, and
> enforce restrictions decided on a per-project basis.
>
> They would enforce the naming rules, see Coding Conventions in the
> Java glossary.
>
> You might even demand that each element of a variable name live in a
> dictionary.  What drives me nuts is maintaining somebody else's code
> who can't spell.
>
> I could imagine that a SCID would have a project dictionary with
> special terminology carefully defined.  Coming cold into a project
> learning the undocumented vocabulary is the hardest thing. All words
> used in variable names would have to be defined if the standard Oxford
> definition did not suffice.
>
> We need to evolve computer languages more toward communication: human
> <=> human and machine => human, rather than just human => machine.
>
> One example would be avoiding nested scope to resolve ambiguity.
> Computers have no problem with it, but in many cases it befuddles
> humans.
>
>
> -
> For more detail, please look up the key words mentioned in this post in
> the Java Glossary at:
> http://mindprod.com/gloss.html or http://209.153.246.39/gloss.html
> If you don't see what you were looking for, complain!
> or send your contribution for the glossary.
> --
> Roedy Green, Canadian Mind Products
> Custom computer programming since 1963.
> Almost ready to take on new work.
>