Re: Long names are doom ?

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

My comment is WRT "terse" for the sake of "terse". If the goal is
"readability" then it is yet to be demonstrated to my satisfaction that
"terse" serves this goal. As has been noted elsewhere, APL and assembly
language could both be described as "terse" and neither is typically held up
as an example of how to produce "readability". If one would contend that
"terse" serves "readability" I would ask to see some kind of study backing
up that claim - complete with a definition of what counts as "terse" and
what is simply "cryptic".

Granted, there are some shorthand notations within any given language that
the cognosenti immediately recognize. This might lead them to believe that
their shorthand is thus more "readable". What they are really seeing is the
fact that it is their familiarity with the idiom that makes it readable - in
the same way that a program I spend weeks building & massaging is more
"readable" than the one someone just now dumped in my lap.

In my estimation, the issue of "readability" is far more important for
someone *new* to a project and/or *new* to the language. Can they walk in
the door and get up to speed more quickly (thus making more money for the
stockholders) if we rely on "terse" languages/notations or will they become
productive faster if the language/notations are more verbose, rely less on
non-obvious semantics, have better comments, etc.?

As for "terse for the sake of being cryptic" - that's obviously A Bad Thing.
My contention is that some programmers are terse for the sake of being
cryptic without really realizing that this is what they are doing. As
cognosenti they derive satisfaction from having what seems cryptic to the
outsider seem intuitively obvious to them. They may remark "....Well any
*competent* XXX programmer would understand this code at a glance!..." It
makes them feel good that they (and the rest of the in-crowd) must be
"better" than the unwashed masses.

Me? I'd rather write unbelievably uncomplicated, uncryptic, un-terse code
(especially when using C) so that when I have someone less experienced, less
familiar or less gifted coming on to a project, they can pick it up as
absolutely quickly as is possible and have the minimum problems making
changes to the code. Why? A) it makes money for the stockholders. B) It
keeps them from asking me hundreds of questions and using up my day - thus
making more money for the stockholders. C) Its less likely they'll make a
mistake that ends up costing the company lots of money - again maximizing
shareholder value, D) Did I mention that it makes money for the
stockholders? :-)

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/


"Pete Thompson" <blackpete@nowhere.somewhere.anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:rdeqht0fhtvgbpima8jbuolfvrl88n3cc3@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:46:36 -0400, "Marin David Condic"
> <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote:
>
> >way around. (And when did "terse" become of value in and of itself,
anyway?
> >Why should it be a goal to be strived for?)
> >
> >MDC
>
> Terse for the sake of readability is good.  It gets right to the point.
>
> Terse for the sake of being cryptic is bad.
>
>