> S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
>>>S.Isaac Dealey wrote:
>>>
>>>If you were to ask a linguist if there was inconsistency
>>>here, they'd definitely say "no".
>>
>> You can't remove the argument from its context
>> (programming syntax)
>> and expect the argument to continue to be valid. It might
>> but that
>> would be a non-sequitur.
> Names have zilch to do with program syntax. My argument
> stands.
The discussion we were having was about people's reasons to choose
singular or plural naming conventions for table names in the context
of programming. Programming syntax was at the core of the context of
the conversation -- the entire reason for having the conversation in
the first place. Your argument is outside the context of the
conversation therefore irrelevent. If you'd like to change the subject
to something not related to programming, fine, but that wasn't the
context of the original conversation.
>> For a human being, yes. But it's not simple to create an
>> automated,
>> mechanical means of pluralising words in english. If I
>> wanted to
>> automate the relationship between my CFC class names and
>> my tables and
>> I used singular class names and plural table names, how
>> would you
>> write this function:
>>
>> function makePlural(noun) { ... }
>>
>> With the assumption that the function _must_ accept any
>> noun in the
>> Oxfard English dictionary.
> Hmm... seems you're talking about O-R mapping, aren't you?
> Sorry, but
> that's just not something I've ever bought into.
So it makes sense that you wouldn't share that reasoning for choosing
a naming convention. Not a problem.
>>>Irregular nouns. Give us a break!
> >
>> And a synonym of irregular is ... wait for it ...
>> "inconsistent".
> And they're also uncommon, and slowly fading away.
Heh... I prefer to write software now rather than waiting for
linguistic changes which occur on a glacial timeline.
>>>This goidelophone wishes to disagree.
>>
>> That's because this goidelophone isn't a stupid
>> computer... A stupid
>> computer doesn't know better. A stupid computer would say
>> it's
>> inconsistent.
> A goidelophone is a gaelic speaker.
Okay... not sure what that has to do with anything, but thanks for the
info. :)
> What does this have to do with computers? There was me
> thinking the primary audience for the code I write is
> whoever maintains it.
The primary audience for the code I write is an end-user, shortly
(very shortly) followed by other programmers. I write software to
solve problems for end users. I automate software tasks to reduce the
amount of maintenance an application requires. Imo less maintenance =
less work = happier, more productive programmers. The automation of
software tasks requires us to speak to the machine -- since computers
don't understand natural language (at least not yet), a good deal of
our work (most of it I think) is to translate our own random and
chaotic thought into linear instructions the machine can follow.
>>>And we write code for humans to understand, not
>>>computers.
>>
>> Imo it's no harder (for a human) to understand and write
>> code against
>> a singular noun than it is to write it against a plural
>> noun,
>> regardless of the context.
> I'm not saying it's harder, just that the code reads more
> awkwardly.
When it's automated you don't have to read it as often. :)
>> But personally, I like to reduce my workload -- reducing
>> my workload means automating tasks (which in turn means
>> reducing or eliminating inconsistencies) -- if a task can
>> be automated easily with one syntactical mechanism and not
>> with another, I'm going to weigh that in favor of the
>> syntax which can be easily automated. I may not ultimately
>> choose that syntax, but it's a significant factor.
> But this isn't syntax: it's a convention or better still,
> a notation. But it definitely ain't syntax.
Notation is a part of syntax. Now you're just splitting hairs.
> I pluralise because it allows me to spot collections when
> I'm scanning code more easily. Think of it as a sane
> variant on Hungarian Notation,
I never considered Hungarian notation to lack sanity... although I'm
not a huge fan. I use it for queries or when there's ambiguity (I have
an array and a structure with the same name).
> if you will. This reduces my workload, because I can
> quickly spot when I'm dealing with collections of
> objects or single objects. If I didn't pluralise, a name
> like "doctor" would be ambiguous: is it a bunch of
> doctors or a single doctor?
I've never had a problem with this. I generally know if it's singular
or plural on the basis of its context (what a given process is
designed to accmoplish).
>> True, a table doesn't have methods, and we
>> generally think of it as being a container, but
>> ultimately either a
>> table or a class is a set of meta-data which describes,
>> structures and
>> manages many individual items (records or object
>> instances). No a
>> table is not a class -- but the argument can be made that
>> they are
>> both sub-classes of the same structural concept (with
>> different
>> interfaces and/or overloaded methods).
> The important point here is that a table is a
> container/collection,
> whereas a class is not (at least not in that sense).
I understand this -- but I was drawing a comparison in the context of
explaining why I prefer singular table names.
s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://macromedia.breezecentral.com/p49777853/
http://www.sys-con.com/author/?id=4806
http://www.fusiontap.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support
efficiency by 100%
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49
Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:201022
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
