Silky it is not a joke. What Dean is saying and I also agree with is this:
We the programmers need to palm off as much as possible to tools we use. I am not smart enough to remember all the strings in my code either, that is why I am stuck with type safety and compiler to help me out. There is no reason for programmers to choose a name and stick with it, the names are not important, they should be changed without having to worry about going through the code and searching for every occurence of the string. Thanks to Winston and Dean for question and answers regards Arjang On 27 May 2010 10:22, silky <michaelsli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:15 AM, David Kean <david.k...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> It's not for variable names, it's for properties and methods. I have to >> refactor code all >> the time - I'm not smart enough to get it right the first time. > > I don't understand this. Why make it like some sort of joke that I'm > somehow smart enough to get it right. Or that it's something > unachievable or ridiculous. This attitude doesn't make sense to me. > I'm no smarter than anyone else, and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon > to choose a good name for something. > > >> When you think about it, it's really just a nature extension to typeof. We >> don't hard code type >> names, so why hard code member names? > > To be honest, I rarely find myself writing these types of names in > strings anyway. It's almost always in the markup, and sometimes it > isn't, but in that case I suppose I wouldn't be particularly upset if > it was done in the fashion you've shown, but I just wouldn't be > concerned either way. > > I don't think it's particularly stupid anymore, just not particularly > neccessary. I don't really have strong feelings about it. > > -- > silky > > http://www.programmingbranch.com/ >
