Names
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
I already voted. :) Once I am past like 2 stupid variable names or I am past 15 lines of code. Well the whole thing needs to be cleaned up for the masses. I pretty much only use astr for strings and some other silly ones. Fun discussion. can't wait to see the posts.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
C# has "institutionalized" throw-away variable names: Discards - C# Guide | Microsoft Docs[^] but they aren't quite what you are talking about. If you mean that an input box returns a value and you'll use it just once, then don't store it in a variable: use it inline, or give it a sensible name if that'll make your "single line of code" unreadable. "result" is a good one - it at least tells you that it's probably short term, but give you a clue what it contains if extra code is added at a later point.
DialogResult result = MessageBox.Show(prompt, caption, MessageBoxButtons.YesNoCancel);
if (result == DialogResult.Cancel) return;
if (result == DialogResult.Yes)
{
...If later code makes the "Cancel" branch bigger (logging, "Are you sure?" that kinda thing maybe) then the sense of the code is retained.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
Guilty. I tend to reuse "CommandString". Only change it if I use more than one at the same time.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
C# has "institutionalized" throw-away variable names: Discards - C# Guide | Microsoft Docs[^] but they aren't quite what you are talking about. If you mean that an input box returns a value and you'll use it just once, then don't store it in a variable: use it inline, or give it a sensible name if that'll make your "single line of code" unreadable. "result" is a good one - it at least tells you that it's probably short term, but give you a clue what it contains if extra code is added at a later point.
DialogResult result = MessageBox.Show(prompt, caption, MessageBoxButtons.YesNoCancel);
if (result == DialogResult.Cancel) return;
if (result == DialogResult.Yes)
{
...If later code makes the "Cancel" branch bigger (logging, "Are you sure?" that kinda thing maybe) then the sense of the code is retained.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
then don't store it in a variable: use it inline
Except when it kills readability, like Commandstrings. <edit>Didn't even read the full sentence properly. :doh:
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
then don't store it in a variable: use it inline
Except when it kills readability, like Commandstrings. <edit>Didn't even read the full sentence properly. :doh:
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
<edit>Didn't even read the full sentence properly
:D
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
<edit>Didn't even read the full sentence properly
:D
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
I'll blame an unfortunate linefeed.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
I already voted. :) Once I am past like 2 stupid variable names or I am past 15 lines of code. Well the whole thing needs to be cleaned up for the masses. I pretty much only use astr for strings and some other silly ones. Fun discussion. can't wait to see the posts.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
Quote:
Fun discussion. can't wait to see the posts.
Yeah same here. It is something that isn't normally spoken about. Thanks for steering this one as well.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
-
C# has "institutionalized" throw-away variable names: Discards - C# Guide | Microsoft Docs[^] but they aren't quite what you are talking about. If you mean that an input box returns a value and you'll use it just once, then don't store it in a variable: use it inline, or give it a sensible name if that'll make your "single line of code" unreadable. "result" is a good one - it at least tells you that it's probably short term, but give you a clue what it contains if extra code is added at a later point.
DialogResult result = MessageBox.Show(prompt, caption, MessageBoxButtons.YesNoCancel);
if (result == DialogResult.Cancel) return;
if (result == DialogResult.Yes)
{
...If later code makes the "Cancel" branch bigger (logging, "Are you sure?" that kinda thing maybe) then the sense of the code is retained.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Guilty. I tend to reuse "CommandString". Only change it if I use more than one at the same time.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Some say that consistency is a virtue. I think that your tendency is OK and readable. Somethings just become habits. Thanks, it is interesting.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
I've never used silly variable names, even for throw away variables, but I do use result and response quite often. I try to use generic variable names in specific types of methods, such as methods used in the data access layer, so I can make templates from them. I try to balance readability, simplicity, and functionality when writing code. That's why I found it quite difficult transitioning from the old way of writing variable names (a$ as an example) to writing out full length variable names such as errorLogEntity.
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid." Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn. Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning. Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
-
I've never used silly variable names, even for throw away variables, but I do use result and response quite often. I try to use generic variable names in specific types of methods, such as methods used in the data access layer, so I can make templates from them. I try to balance readability, simplicity, and functionality when writing code. That's why I found it quite difficult transitioning from the old way of writing variable names (a$ as an example) to writing out full length variable names such as errorLogEntity.
"When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others; same thing when you are stupid." Ignorant - An individual without knowledge, but is willing to learn. Stupid - An individual without knowledge and is incapable of learning. Idiot - An individual without knowledge and allows social media to do the thinking for them.
Sensible. I like what you are saying. It just makes sense. Repetition for short throw away vars and full length names for important and longer living ones. Some may think that a$ was a bit silly, but hey, it was common way back.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
for loop counters i use i,j,k, etc for results from routines i use "result" for throwaways I usually use an abbreviated name that indicates the purpose. if the purpose is obvious, and the variable has small locality in my routine, i may even name it something like "fn" to hold a filename, or p to hold a point.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
grralph1 wrote:
I love and respect Sander.
Love you too man #nohomo #bromance 😘
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
grralph1 wrote:
I love and respect Sander.
Love you too man #nohomo #bromance 😘
Best, Sander Azure DevOps Succinctly (free eBook) Azure Serverless Succinctly (free eBook) Migrating Apps to the Cloud with Azure arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript
-
for loop counters i use i,j,k, etc for results from routines i use "result" for throwaways I usually use an abbreviated name that indicates the purpose. if the purpose is obvious, and the variable has small locality in my routine, i may even name it something like "fn" to hold a filename, or p to hold a point.
Real programmers use butterflies
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
I did respond to the previously mentioned post, as one who does use silly names. Perhaps a new topic, but I also leave silly (funny?) comments in the code for whomever receives the punishment of having to fix modify my code later.
// Note: No pterodactyls were harmed in the testing of this code, but the same cannot be guaranteed once released in the wild.
if (...) {
-
-
} else {
// Sit back, relax, and have a beer.
}Nothing succeeds like a budgie without teeth.
-
for loop counters i use i,j,k, etc for results from routines i use "result" for throwaways I usually use an abbreviated name that indicates the purpose. if the purpose is obvious, and the variable has small locality in my routine, i may even name it something like "fn" to hold a filename, or p to hold a point.
Real programmers use butterflies
This discussion is quite fascinating. Back in my youth (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), languages restricted both length of variable names and enforced type based on initial (or even only!) letters. So, I to N would be integer, everything else floating point. This is, I believe the origin of the common use of i,j,k for integer loop variables etc, and x,y,z (also algebraic) for common floats. Someone I once employed would have complex calculations etc using variables like x, xx, xxx, xxxx and y,yy,yyy,yyyy etc - write only code if ever there was any. The advent of unrestricted variable names led to the opposite extreme, where variable (and function) names became so long and complex eg: doubleCalculateOffsetForWaveFunction(intScaleFactorForWaveFunction,floatWaveFunctionSeedValue) doubleCalculateOffsetForInverseWaveFunction(intScaleFactorForWaveFunction,floatWaveFunctionSeedValue) with variations on camelCase, "_" separators etc) that code became tedious to type correctly and especially to refactor before the rise of the modern IDE; impossible to read and understand because of the effort needed to parse the variable names, especially when lots were very similar in structure etc etc. (How would you know from reading the two declarations above whether the parameters were the correct variables eg: you might indeed want to use the same seeds here, or it might need different ones, so why not just use 'seed' etc) BUT, you have to beware of making anything other than throwaway variable names too specific to the algorithm rather than their usage - because this can make them ambiguous or misleading in meaning: does 'intUserValue' indicate something entered by the user, some property of the user, the user's value to the organisation etc Making up variable names can be one of the hardest parts of coding something especially if one coding house uses identical names differently to another. I recently dug myself into a hole migrating a business app from SAGE accounts to XERO, because in SAGE anything (Nominal ledger entries, customers, suppliers etc) can be in an 'account'. In XERO only nominal items go in 'accounts', customers go in 'contacts'. I only discovered this when I tried to post a customer invoice and found that I couldn't assign it to an 'account', only to a 'contact'. Then there are the times when you use a library function return value in-line, there's a bug, and even your modern sophisticated IDE has no way to inspect the return value without dropping right down to assembler level
-
rnbergren's recent post about variable names was good. Lots of helpful advice poured in. I didn't respond but I think that I should have done so. rnbergren's post was about using frivolous or silly names for Variables and other things in proof of concept code and then using this as in copy and pasting in the real code. Sometimes changing it and sometimes not. Enjoying it or not. Most responses were like, do it properly in the first place and it won't end up in your production code. I agree. I have done it in the past but not anymore. However I do like to be creative and sometimes I look at a previously named function, sub or Var name and marvel in it's relevance. I often comment/remark on the name as well so that it makes sense to others. Sander Wrote:
Quote:
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" Smile | :)
OK ewww is a bit weird unless the table has field names like ewww and ahhh. (I love and respect Sander.) I used to always use nresponse as the throw away variable name for things like the result of an input box within a sub. I remember using ansStr once which was commented as 'answer string'. So close to astr. Personally I don't see the problem especially with a throwaway Variable. It is only there for a few micro seconds. Every other name is important. So I am interested in what others use for a throw away variable names used to hold a response from something like an inputbox or similar. Do you always use the same name and if so what is it? Or do you change it to suit the situation?
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
I use "result" or "response" when it is really a throw away variable for debugging purposes. Using "ewww" or "blurpp" is crossing the line. We are working, not joking with friends. Even if it's a personal project, bad habits get carried to other things.
-
This discussion is quite fascinating. Back in my youth (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), languages restricted both length of variable names and enforced type based on initial (or even only!) letters. So, I to N would be integer, everything else floating point. This is, I believe the origin of the common use of i,j,k for integer loop variables etc, and x,y,z (also algebraic) for common floats. Someone I once employed would have complex calculations etc using variables like x, xx, xxx, xxxx and y,yy,yyy,yyyy etc - write only code if ever there was any. The advent of unrestricted variable names led to the opposite extreme, where variable (and function) names became so long and complex eg: doubleCalculateOffsetForWaveFunction(intScaleFactorForWaveFunction,floatWaveFunctionSeedValue) doubleCalculateOffsetForInverseWaveFunction(intScaleFactorForWaveFunction,floatWaveFunctionSeedValue) with variations on camelCase, "_" separators etc) that code became tedious to type correctly and especially to refactor before the rise of the modern IDE; impossible to read and understand because of the effort needed to parse the variable names, especially when lots were very similar in structure etc etc. (How would you know from reading the two declarations above whether the parameters were the correct variables eg: you might indeed want to use the same seeds here, or it might need different ones, so why not just use 'seed' etc) BUT, you have to beware of making anything other than throwaway variable names too specific to the algorithm rather than their usage - because this can make them ambiguous or misleading in meaning: does 'intUserValue' indicate something entered by the user, some property of the user, the user's value to the organisation etc Making up variable names can be one of the hardest parts of coding something especially if one coding house uses identical names differently to another. I recently dug myself into a hole migrating a business app from SAGE accounts to XERO, because in SAGE anything (Nominal ledger entries, customers, suppliers etc) can be in an 'account'. In XERO only nominal items go in 'accounts', customers go in 'contacts'. I only discovered this when I tried to post a customer invoice and found that I couldn't assign it to an 'account', only to a 'contact'. Then there are the times when you use a library function return value in-line, there's a bug, and even your modern sophisticated IDE has no way to inspect the return value without dropping right down to assembler level
A wonderful response. Really enjoyed this one especially. Thanks. I was aware of most of the history that you mentioned. The long variable and function name thing made me nearly spit my stout out over the keyboard. I have never seen this before but I have seen similar. I usually comment on names, especially function names and occasionally with Variables if they may seem obscure. A comment is sometimes priceless.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
