Not programming, but a preference question.

[Espen Harlinn]

I agree on the importance of good naming, and I'm pretty sure wizardzz does too. I stopped using hungarian notation more than 10 years ago, but I still prefer variables not to be declared using var. I know that the IDE provides great help for determining the type of a variable, but when you have large amounts of code that you have to wade through, I've found that it helps that the variables are fully declared.

Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile

[Lost User]

If you know the type why would you use var? It seems strange to use a var with Hungarian notation. var varInt = 2+2; <--- omg, why?

[TheGreatAndPowerfulOz]

wizardzz wrote:

So does it make me a dick to want to use some sort of Hungarian Notation on these vars?

Maybe. Depends. A var should only be used where the type can be easily ascertained from the context and the variable's name should indicate what it is.

var veggie = new Cucumber(); // yep, ok

var dingdong = SomeFunctionOfObtuseNaming(); // nope, not ok

var custList = GetCustomerList(); // Yep, OK

Sometimes var is required by the language when using LINQ.

var custList = from CustomerList select Name, Address where AccountValue > 1000; // dubious syntax, but you get the drift I am sure

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun

[TheGreatAndPowerfulOz]

wizardzz wrote:

propBeginDate

why "prop"? The "type" or "what it is" is already part of the name. BeginDate

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun

[Sander Rossel]

The only 'Hungarian' notation you need is clear naming of your variables. var iAge does NOT make your code more readable (it does invite for jokes though, like "the new Apple product" or "a coming IceAge"). var cList does NOT make your code more readable. var sName... You get the picture. Hoovering over the var word reveals the type of the variable and is in many cases easier than some weird notation (at least weird in a .NET context). Besides, when is var REALLY necessary? When working with anonymous types. And how are you sensibly going to 'Hungarian notate' those? :) Var isn't really big and ugly either. At least not always. Consider the following:

// I've had code that looked something like the following:
foreach (KeyValuePair>> pair in someDictionary) {
// or...
foreach (var pair in someDictionary) {

Which is bigger and uglier? :)

It's an OO world.

public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{
public void DoWork(){ throw new NotImplementedException(); }
}

[wizardzz]

yeah, 'prop' is not a good example, though there is a Global Begin, that is, a Date, ugh, it's a mess.

[Jorgen Andersson]

I love Refactor, but hate Coderush.

Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions

[Lost User]

wizardzz wrote:

There is literally a declaration that looks like

var loc = ...

when it's being used as:

Locations.Location loc = ....

wizardzz wrote:

there are about 4 different variables referring to different types of locations

yeah, that is pretty bad. Rename away with the knowledge that he who wrote it originally was the d1ck.

Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.

[wizardzz]

OriginalGriff wrote:

Besides, it's lazy. "I don't want to think about this variable, it just want to get on with the interesting stuff".

I didn't realize this would be such a hot topic, but yes, I have noticed in some previous projects that this was the case.

[Espen Harlinn]

Jörgen Andersson wrote:

Coderush

Yes, it can be annoying at times ...

Espen Harlinn Principal Architect, Software - Goodtech Projects & Services AS My LinkedIn Profile

[Lost User]

Yep, I see that now. Good to know. You were worrying me ;P

Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.

[Jorgen Andersson]

wizardzz wrote:

A big ugly word

Small and ugly I would say.

wizardzz wrote:

So does it make me a dick to want to use some sort of Hungarian Notation* on these vars?

Sort of, it has a distinct feel of VB6, but atleast it doesn't make you a Sunshine.

Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions

[TheGreatAndPowerfulOz]

Jörgen Andersson wrote:

make you a Sunshine

But if it did, then he could elephant himself.

If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun

[Tom Delany]

AspDotNetDev wrote:

var varBinks

Wasn't he JarJar's step-brother? :-D

WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.

[Tom Delany]

wizardzz wrote:

am I dick for changing variables to make more sense?

No no. Not just for that. ;P Don't get your undies in a bundle. I'm just busting your chops! :)

WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.

[Tom Delany]

Espen Harlinn wrote:

I'm pretty sure other refactoring tools have a similar feature.

Resharper does.

WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.

[Tom Delany]

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

IT doesn't make you a dick.

Damn! you beat me to it![^] :doh:

WE ARE DYSLEXIC OF BORG. Refutance is systile. Your a$$ will be laminated. There are 10 kinds of people in the world: People who know binary and people who don't.

[PIEBALDconsult]

ahmed zahmed wrote:

var should only be used where the type can be easily ascertained

No, that's wrong -- it should only be used when the developer can't know the type, as in

ahmed zahmed wrote:

when using LINQ

[BillWoodruff]

Hi Colin, Excuse me for being picky-picky, but, in your first code example above: I can see four reasons why it will not compile (errors) just by eye-balling it. To my mind, two of those errors reflect a mis-understanding of the required syntax/semantics for how 'var can be used. I see no reason to down-vote here (or up-vote), because you are, after all, posting this as a "theoretical example," not "working code," but, also, I must admit by being "disturbed" that two different classes contain a sub-class (RequiredComponent) with an identical name: that practice, to me, is one that may give rise to problems with later code maintenance: if "RequiredComponent" is ever used from outside its parent Class(es). best, Bill

"The greatest mystery is not that we have been flung at random between the profusion of matter and of the stars, but that within this prison we can draw from ourselves images powerful enough to deny our nothingness." Andre Malraux

[BillWoodruff]

My 2 cents (farthings, groats, obeloi) worth: While MS pronouncements on use of 'var have often mentioned the "economy" of not having to enter the fully qualified name of some object twice: imho, the major usage has been associated with conveniently storing the result of some LINQ-produced complex entity that you could break a tooth on trying to specify its exact type. ... begin edit #1 ... And, I forgot to say using 'var for "anonymous types" is required ! ... end edit #1 ... We've always had ways to shorten up long fully-qualified object names using the "using directive:" as in the "extreme" example offered here:

using System;
using spc1 = ThirdPartyNameSpace.RequiredComponent1;
using spc2 = DifferentThirdPartyNameSpace.RequiredComponent2;

namespace ThirdPartyNameSpace
{
// used internal here just for the 'hell' of it ...
internal class RequiredComponent1
{
}
}

namespace DifferentThirdPartyNameSpace
{
internal class RequiredComponent2
{
}
}

namespace Local
{
class Thingamajig
{
spc1 s1ReqComponent = new spc1();

    spc2 s2ReqComponent = new spc2();
}

}

Note that I am not advocating you should code this way, and, in actual practice, I usually use this only when using a 3rd. party component that really requires complex multi-dot path names to use the most commonly used elements in it. And, in that case, I would use variable names that were, indeed, mnemonic (which is not what you see here). best, Bill

"The greatest mystery is not that we have been flung at random between the profusion of matter and of the stars, but that within this prison we can draw from ourselves images powerful enough to deny our nothingness." Andre Malraux