Programming isn't hard...
-
I prefer to call all my variables a1, a2, a3, a4, and so on. Also, once I get to a6, I use another letter (say, b1)... that way, I only ever have to use my left hand and can keep my right hand on the mouse. It's a very efficient technique I wish everybody else would adopt. Until then, I just refactor all the code I see with overly long variable names like "count" (that's a particularly bad name because some of the characters require the right hand to type). I sleep easily at night, comfortable in the knowledge that all my refactoring has made the world a better place. :-\
Somebody in an online forum wrote:
INTJs never really joke. They make a point. The joke is just a gift wrapper.
Saving the right hand for better uses?
-
Where they flops too? :laugh:
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{}
Naerling wrote:
Where they flops too?
Wow, he's going for the record in grammatical errors in 4 words ;-)
-
Naerling wrote:
Where they flops too?
Wow, he's going for the record in grammatical errors in 4 words ;-)
Were* And that's the only one I can find... But let's see how well your Dutch grammar is :) Als je durft ;p (yeah, translate that!)
It's an OO world.
public class Naerling : Lazy<Person>{}
-
_beauw_ wrote:
The declaration at the end of this snippet implies that the name
max_subscriptis actually an inaccurate description.I would agree, but that isn't a fault of the naming convention. Rather, it is a fault of the coder: max_subscript is wrong, and doesn't describe what the constant is used for: max_elements_count would have been better (or max_whatevertheheckthearrayholds_count even better still) For me, the problem is I grew up with Fortran, where a line of code was 80 characters, and variables were a max of six characters. Generally names were impenetrable, short and unrelated to the use. So, when I can I use "proper" names for things, because it means I can read the code in six months time and stand a vague chance of working out how it works. :laugh:
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
When I learnt Algol60 (no limit on variable names) after several years of writing FORTRAN IV / 66 (max 6 chars in variable names), our lecturer said we had to use long, meaningful identifiers and I failed to see what the advantage was. So, for an assessed piece of work, I used 80-char identifiers (as identifiers could not be broken across cards) causing even simple assignments to straddle multiple cards and to render the whole program totally unintelligible. [Using whole cards per identifier did make coding easy - I could just duplicate the cards rather than having to retype the identifier wherever it was used] I also submitted a legible version using short identifiers. The lecturer was not impressed.
-
When I learnt Algol60 (no limit on variable names) after several years of writing FORTRAN IV / 66 (max 6 chars in variable names), our lecturer said we had to use long, meaningful identifiers and I failed to see what the advantage was. So, for an assessed piece of work, I used 80-char identifiers (as identifiers could not be broken across cards) causing even simple assignments to straddle multiple cards and to render the whole program totally unintelligible. [Using whole cards per identifier did make coding easy - I could just duplicate the cards rather than having to retype the identifier wherever it was used] I also submitted a legible version using short identifiers. The lecturer was not impressed.
:laugh: I can't imagine why not!
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
-
_beauw_ wrote:
The declaration at the end of this snippet implies that the name
max_subscriptis actually an inaccurate description.I would agree, but that isn't a fault of the naming convention. Rather, it is a fault of the coder: max_subscript is wrong, and doesn't describe what the constant is used for: max_elements_count would have been better (or max_whatevertheheckthearrayholds_count even better still) For me, the problem is I grew up with Fortran, where a line of code was 80 characters, and variables were a max of six characters. Generally names were impenetrable, short and unrelated to the use. So, when I can I use "proper" names for things, because it means I can read the code in six months time and stand a vague chance of working out how it works. :laugh:
Real men don't use instructions. They are only the manufacturers opinion on how to put the thing together. Manfred R. Bihy: "Looks as if OP is learning resistant."
Reminds me of my SAP days, relatively recently, where table identifiers were normally four character acronyms, and field names six characters , both often based on the original German names. After a surprisingly short while I found these very easy to remember and use, considering we coded in a line editor without Intellisense.
