Re: Types, packages & objects : the good old naming conventions question (without religious ware)

["Hibou57 (Yannick Duchêne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Suggested reading : http://p.einarsen.no/programmer-personality-types-and-why-it-matters-at-all/

This may not be obviously related to naming convention, but please,
read, this is related to “ understanding each others ”

This may throw light on two points :
1) why it appears we encounter difficulties in agreeing about a common
convention
2) why we should agree on a common convention

(both)

A quote from this article :
> That is also a good thing to keep in mind when formatting code for
> readability: if your coding style differs from standard Perl Tidy or
> your company’s coding standard, keep in mind that you are not
> formatting for yourself, but a colleague, maintainer or anonymous
> CPAN downloader. They are more likely to understand a common
> standard than your standard. It sounds obvious, don’t it? I don’t
> think many (any) programmers think like this even so.

Thus the need to agree, which in turn make it less difficult a
situation where yours and others may match

( we may suppose formalization and explicit rationals may help to
agree )

Note : when I've though about posting this quote, I've made the
assumption this is also applicable when peoples are not working for a
common company and even when they are working alone but not in their
strict own purpose