[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] Starting a Flame war on nomenclature

From: Karsten Hilbert
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Starting a Flame war on nomenclature
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:01:35 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/

> The POWER  of modern languages is that we can be descriptive. 

>       : EB    EMPTY-BUFFERS;
> and to then use that throughout the code, which then becomes essentially 
> UNREADABLE to anyone else but the programmer.
> So, he extolled - 'Be proud to type 'EMPTY-BUFFERS'.
To make a long story short:

use descriptive/sufficiently verbose object names

I agree. I think we already set this down in the developer
guidelines. No need for a flamewar.

> Not so in gnumed
How do you get that expression ?

> and the ID_PUP is a classic.
I agree that is not the best choice.

> I name my popup ids ID_popup_AddPatientPhoto (not ID_popup10) etc
Well, sounds OK to me. I would just name it

> Similarly, I think the database table and function names are less than optimal
You need to list the ones that you think are suboptimal here.

There's a reason with DB tables, too. PostgreSQL has a default
max length for names that is 31 characters (or some such

> So I would plead!!!! for long names and readability, if only so that others 
> trying to help can actually understand what the routines are all about.
In fact I have attempted to use useful names for things.

GPG key ID E4071346 @
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]