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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 11440e,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid11440e,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-30 05:10:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.alt.net!usenet From: "Chris Smith" 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: Wed, 30 May 2001 07:04:27 -0500 Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - http://www.altopia.com Message-ID: <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net> References: <3B0DBD4A.82943473@my-deja.net> <3B0DD011.88FCD00E@acm.org> <83WP6.3874$yc6.728572@news.xtra.co.nz> <3B1411D0.3AAF42E7@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> 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:10243 comp.lang.ada:7868 comp.lang.awk:2640 comp.lang.clarion:20587 comp.lang.java.programmer:71943 comp.lang.pl1:681 comp.lang.vrml:3380 Date: 2001-05-30T07:04:27-05:00 List-Id: "Wes Groleau" wrote ... > The issue is not short or long, it's readability and likelihood > of error. Definitely. You are exactly right. > From that viewpoint, I find it hard to understand why, > in the name of "consistency" some folks _vociferously_ castigate > those of us who prefer > > View_Preferences_General_Options_Action > > over > > viewPreferencesGeneralOptionsAction Well, this thread is being posted to multiple newsgroups, and I have no idea where you are posting from. When I wrote the original example, I was posting from comp.lang.java.programmer, and didn't notice that the thread was being cross-posted. For that reason, I used standard Java naming conventions. In other languages, of course, the conventions are different... some languages leave conventions to be defined on a per-project (or, more pessimistically, per-developer) basis. If you're arguing for the View_... form in the Java language, then I'll have to disagree. I disagree for two reasons: first, under standard conventions, each type of name in Java has a specific meaning to those reading the code. It helps people to understand the code *without* prior familiarity with the vocabulary itself; at least I know whether an instance method is being invoked on an object, or a class method is being invoked on a class. Second, these standard conventions allow developers to make reasonable guesses, and to more easily remember, the names of the methods and fields they do commonly use. I'd hate to (as I have in C++ on occasion) use several third party libraries in a project and have to remember that library A capitalizes method names and uses underscores, but library B starts them with lower case and no underscores and library C in turn adds a 'C' before all class names. That's why consistency is a valid goal. Java *does* have a nearly universal convention on naming of identifiers, and that makes things much easier, as long as people follow it. Chris Smith