What would you name this class? [modified]
-
(This is not a programming question). I have a bunch of
Fooobjects, all of which are controlled by aFooManager. What would you name an object that controls a collection ofFooManagers? [edit]Foo,FooManagerand the manager ofFooManagers are all processes in a distributed system. [/edit] [edit] John C is right - this really does belong in the Design forum. I might have actually got more than a couple of useful answers if I'd posted there in the first place. :-D [/edit] Thanks, /raviMy new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
modified on Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:49 PM
-
PeterTheSwede wrote:
Foo is one ...
Exactly. So just why does an American WW2 military acronym find get used by nerdy computer programers? Did the first programmers come form 101 airborn? Makes me want to puke!
PeterTheSwede wrote:
Using it shows experience and literacy (and/or age, possibly - which also calls for respect).
That is exactly my point. Its used purely to atempt to appear more 'expert' or whatever despite the fact the user most likely isnt.
PeterTheSwede wrote:
So what exactly are you doing on a computer programming site?
Sorry, did CP become the home of nerds? I thought it was for software engineers? h, by the way, I was in mechanical engineering for many years before switching to software engineering, so I have many traits of a mechanical engineer, I like beer and cars for example, and not those of a typical software engineer.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
h, by the way, I was in mechanical engineering for many years before switching to software engineering, so I have many traits of a mechanical engineer, I like beer and cars for example, and not those of a typical software engineer.
Well, that sounds a lot like me and most of the software engineers I've ever met, actually. You didn't mention bikes. I'm currently trying to make my mind up whether to buy a Honda VFR or a Ducati ST2 for this season... or something completely different. Still using my 25 years old 400cc "refresher" (winter is nine months in Sweden, so we basically have to learn how to ride again each spring - it's good to have something basic in the garage to do the refresh training on when the early spring weather permits), but it won't go beyond 150 km/h (not even that unless pushed into the red) and while that was still fun a couple of weeks ago, it's getting old now. And my left foot is getting oily - a crank case gasket wants attention, and I don't want to crack the thing open until I have something else to ride. So it's time to make a choice. Any suggestions? And no - no Harleys or similar... Swedish roads have curves. A whole lot of them... :-) However, nerdiness seems to come with the territory (or territories - most of my friends back when I studied mechanical engineering were definitely nerds - those who weren't invariably failed the math and eventually dropped out). Of course, it's not a virtue to strive for, it just sort of happens. In my case it came from being a bit to interested in math, physics and mechanics back in school than was generally accepted by those unable to grasp the subjects (soccer and bullying others around were the acceptable interests, and the conformist bunch tended to stick to them). Then again, I'm a Swede, and may not fully grasp all the nuances of the word "nerd"... :-O As for "foo" and "bar": I picked them up from K&R about 25 years ago and didn't have a clue about where they got them from. I tend to use them now and then out of habit (instead of wasting time inventing my own dummy names). It started out when I did some time as an assistant teacher in programming at the university (or numerical algorithms to be precise - it was in the mechanical engineering department). I wouldn't dream of using them just to make a point of using them. That would be utterly ridiculous... and I much suspect the OP would think so too. Why I spend so much time (yes, writing even this amount of
-
Odd. I am totaly not a geek or a nerd. I like talking about philosophy, telling jokes, politics, food, especially food, but never about computers. For me computers are a job. I like writing device drivers for windows, its very complex, very challenging, but I dont give a toss what the market as a whole is doing elsewhere.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Amen. I also couldn't care less about what the market is doing (whether or not MS or Google is the bad guy of the day or not and so on and so forth). I generally don't spend my leisure time around colleagues (unless they share my resentment towards shop talk when not at work). However... when I'm on the CP site, it's work. Sort of. I'm here in an effort to evolve - workwise. The job itself is a moving target, and I have to spend time keeping up (which is part of what makes it interesting - a big part, actually). So I don't mind shop talk here, and I don't mind people using commonly used terms - or commonly used dummy variable names :-) - when engaging in it. When I'm totally not working, you won't find me here. If the weather permits, you may find me leaning hard into a curve, blissfully aware that bikes don't have a front license plate for speed cameras to identify... :cool:
-
Odd. I am totaly not a geek or a nerd. I like talking about philosophy, telling jokes, politics, food, especially food, but never about computers. For me computers are a job. I like writing device drivers for windows, its very complex, very challenging, but I dont give a toss what the market as a whole is doing elsewhere.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Odd. I am totaly not a geek or a nerd. I like talking about philosophy...
Look up the origins of the word "nerd" (e.g. 1st paragraph[^]), which, given your description of your own interests, would accurately describe you to the majority of people who would normally use the word. Before the advent of personal computing, the more common term (in English anyway) was "bookworm". Any given group will always find or invent disparaging terms for those who don't fit with their estimation of the social "norm" (e.g. when "nerds" get together, someone interested in sports will be referred to as a "jock"). Given the venue for this discussion & the remarks you've made (which any reasonable person would recognise as disparaging toward the majority of users of this site), I think we already know the term for you: "troll"[^]
T-Mac-Oz
-
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
I have a bunch of Foo objects
WhyTF did you start with that stupid name in the first place? And just what does 'Foo' mean anyway? You probably dont knmow, and you just use it because you think it makes you look cool because you read it in some crappy SW book written by an American, because, god knows, only an American would ever use it anyway. Fuck I hate computer nerdyness.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
WhyTF did you start with that stupid name in the first place?
His class is probably called something else* that makes sense for the application & he doesn't want to expose too much of the internals of what he's working on (I wouldn't). It's an industry convention, you write software, you use "Foo" & "FooBar" as example names for functions, classes etc. Just like anyone referring to a generic "person" in an example for anything uses "John Smith". Who cares what it originally meant? It's long since gone past that, it's out there, it's easy to remember & use & its intended meaning is clear to the majority of users of this forum. If he wasted the time to wonder "what example names can I use that won't make me sound too nerdy?", I'd say he's got bigger problems than the nomenclature in his architecture. As for:
fat_boy wrote:
f*** I hate computer nerdyness.
see this[^] * Given one his product names though, I do wonder :-D
T-Mac-Oz
-
FooQueue? :-O
FooQue! That is quite funny :) In all seriousness (is it a serious question?), what is wrong with a more traditional or universal nomenclature (but probably boring) "FooManagerCollection" or "FooManagers"?? Cheers, Hymee.
-
Since it deals with Managers, how about Fool? :)
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
-
MRLacey wrote:
Objects shouldn't control other objects.
Are you completely unfamiliar with the concept of design patterns? /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
coordinate yes. control no. the distinction is important. Control tends towards tendencies to doing things that objects should be doing themselves. It's hard to be autonomous (which objects should be) if there is a dependency on another object to control it.
Matt Lacey
-
If objects shouldn't control other objects, then what the hell good are they? You just write little objects and say: "See what pretty code I made?" Good grief.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
coordinate yes. control no. the distinction is important. Control tends towards tendencies to doing things that objects should be doing themselves. It's hard to be autonomous (which objects should be) if there is a dependency on another object to control it.
Matt Lacey
MRLacey wrote:
Control tends towards tendencies to doing things that objects should be doing themselves.
I disagree. Control implies the controller is the entity that requests that its controlled entities perform certain actions (eg: start, stop, pause, etc.). The implementation of start, stop, pause, etc. continue to reside in the controlled object. There is no loss of object orientation or isolation of responsibility. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
MRLacey wrote:
Control tends towards tendencies to doing things that objects should be doing themselves.
I disagree. Control implies the controller is the entity that requests that its controlled entities perform certain actions (eg: start, stop, pause, etc.). The implementation of start, stop, pause, etc. continue to reside in the controlled object. There is no loss of object orientation or isolation of responsibility. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
I think our disagreement is semantic. I'm just aware (from code I've had to support) that some people think that when controlling another object it is acceptable to break what should be appropriate levels of responsibility. 'Coordinate' prompts people to ask what is meant, compared to control. And can help thinking about appropriate levels of interaction between objects. "Ask that object to save itself", rather than "save that object." Collaboration rather than management. Coordination and cooperation, rather than control.
Matt Lacey
-
(This is not a programming question). I have a bunch of
Fooobjects, all of which are controlled by aFooManager. What would you name an object that controls a collection ofFooManagers? [edit]Foo,FooManagerand the manager ofFooManagers are all processes in a distributed system. [/edit] [edit] John C is right - this really does belong in the Design forum. I might have actually got more than a couple of useful answers if I'd posted there in the first place. :-D [/edit] Thanks, /raviMy new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
modified on Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:49 PM
I may be breaking dozens of rules here, but has anyone simply considered FooManagers? Foo - One FooManager - One that manages Foos FooManagers - Multiple. Unless the collection does something special other than being just a collection.
-
I may be breaking dozens of rules here, but has anyone simply considered FooManagers? Foo - One FooManager - One that manages Foos FooManagers - Multiple. Unless the collection does something special other than being just a collection.
That's just it - it's not a collection. :) Here's what I ended up calling the classes:
FooFooManagerServiceFooManagerServiceController
/ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com