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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d95b511473b3a931 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Language Choice and Coding style Date: 1996/07/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 163957922 references: <4r3c89$com@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> <4r7pvr$sh6@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4rcinv$bhn@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: The endless discussion over what form of identifiers is easiest to read is a bit silly. In practice what is easiest to read is what you are used to. I used to like the 83 RM style of all caps because I was used to it, and it was easiest to read, because of this familiarity. Then I switched to mixed upper/lower case with underlines, and now that seems the easiest to read. This familiarity factor argues for consistency, and one of the nice things about COBOL for example is that absolutely EVERYONE has the same identifier style. In Ada with Ada 95, there seems to be a real consensus developing for use of Mixed_Case_Identifiers_With_Underscores, and that seems a good thing (that a consensus is developing). I think this consitency is much more important than odd individual preferences, and I would encourage people NOT to develop peculiar idiosyncratic conventions, it will just make your code harder to read for other people.