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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 11440e,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid11440e,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-05-27 20:22:48 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.rdc1.bc.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Roedy Green 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 ? Organization: Canadian Mind Products Reply-To: roedy@mindprod.com Message-ID: References: <3B0DBD4A.82943473@my-deja.net> <3B0DD011.88FCD00E@acm.org> <83WP6.3874$yc6.728572@news.xtra.co.nz> <3B1130B0.418BECBA@webnexus.com> <3B114F39.540DF7C1@flash.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 03:22:47 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.76.128.193 X-Complaints-To: abuse@home.net X-Trace: news1.rdc1.bc.home.com 991020167 24.76.128.193 (Sun, 27 May 2001 20:22:47 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 20:22:47 PDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ruby:10028 comp.lang.ada:7825 comp.lang.awk:2622 comp.lang.clarion:20425 comp.lang.java.programmer:71196 comp.lang.pl1:673 comp.lang.vrml:3360 Date: 2001-05-28T03:22:47+00:00 List-Id: On Sun, 27 May 2001 14:02:17 -0500, Gary Scott wrote or quoted : >1 is a reasonable minimum in my opinion, but it was put into effect >about a decade ago. Assume there is such a thing as the objectively best possible name for a given variable that could be found my sufficient experiment. I would think it highly unlikely that in all possible computer programs that all such names are less than 20 characters. It is thus arrogant of the designers of languages to enforce very short names. There was an excuse a long time ago -- compiling long ones could not be done in typical available RAM. Today it makes more sense to let the people most familiar with the app decide on what the optimum name is and how long it should be, subject only to the practicalities of writing a compiler, e.g. using a single length byte. For more detail, please look up the key words mentioned in this post in the Java Glossary at: http://mindprod.com/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. Ready to take on new work.