Re: Suffix _T for types found good

[Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> writes:
> It seems to be tempting to just use some variation of
> a type name for objects. Example:
> 
>    osw: OutputStreamWriter;  -- NOT!
> 
> is typical of programs targetting the JVM. So the reader
> remembers that "osw" designates some output channel.
> But which one?  The programmer was too lazy to think of
> a name.  Points of reference: The purpose of this output.
> Where does it end?  Which ends does it connect?

I would use instead:

    writer : OutputStreamWriter;

Use small routines. Then the names become clear, even if it is just osw.

Succinct naming as a part of the general strategy of "Spartan Programming" is
talked about here:

  http://ssdl-wiki.cs.technion.ac.il/wiki/index.php/Spartan_programming

Some further debate about those ideas are found in the Coding Horror blog: 

  http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001148.html

At the risk of offense, being an Ada group and all, I must point out that
Java's case insensitivity allows this kind of thing:

  Node node;

which in practice works just fine: types are capitalized, values are not. It's
easy to write, to read, and to maintain.

Before I get blasted about the evils of case insensitivity, I should point out
that Java is a unicode language, allows unicode in its identifiers, and case
folding is not sensical in the general case for unicode characters. With Ada
being essentially an ASCII language, the case folding debate has merit.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.