Joerg,

thank you for looking into this - fixing typos and style issues in other 
peoples code is really quite a gruelling task.

And trying to get agreement on style issues in a community of developers 
is virtually impossible, isn't it :-), as we all have our own likes and 
dislikes.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 07:55 am, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Hi devs,
> while examining the Checkstyle and JavaDoc complaints I
> got a few more questions about the FOP style:
> 1. There is still quite a bit of hungarian notation here and
>   there. Hungarian notation generally sucks unless it is
>   consistently applied. Furthermore, it is systems hungarian
>   (see http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html),
>   which unconditionally sucks.
>   And yes, we do already have an "int bFooFlag".
>   I'd like to exterminate this.

+1 I am with you here - allthough I am guilty as well: If I find a class 
written in hungarian style and I have to make a modification I will 
sick with the style of the original author. What I dislike most is 
mixing styles as this make code IMO very difficult to read.

> 2. There are two different styles for constructors and setters
>   in use:
>     Constructor(int foo) {
>       this.foo=foo
>     }
>   and
>     Constructor(int f) {
>       foo=f
>     }
>   We should standardize on one form. I'd like the first because
>   the second may have the undesirable effect of using unintuitive
>   abbreviations or alternative names for the parameter.
>   I told Checkstyle laready to accept the first form (there are
>   *lots* of warnings about it). Unfortunately, Checkstyle can't yet
>   enforce it.

Doesn't worry me too much although I prefer the style you prefer as 
well.

> 3. We have too much weird abbreviations everywhere. In particular,
>   usage of abbreviations is wildly inconsistent. I'd like to
>   remind everyone that using proper words to compose identifiers
>   has advantages. With the autocompletion features of modern IDEs,
>   long identifiers shouldn't impair typing too much.
>   I'll probably expand randomly choosen names in the future, which
>   may include class names. Tell me now if you don't like this.
>

That's a difficult one - I don't think there is a "right or wrong" here. 
And yes consistency would be great (e.g. all layout manager classes 
should be called ...LayoutManager and not some ...LM). I agree that 
this is not really a typing issue but it is arguable at what length an 
identifier actually gets in the way of readability, e.g. is 
'lineStartBorderAndPaddingWidth' preferable to 'lineStartBAP' if that 
variable is used a lot in expressions which are then split over multi 
lines everywhere this variable is used?

What about a WIKI page listing commonly used abbreviations found in the 
code base?

So +1 for consistent class names and +1 for consistent and considered 
use of abbreviations but please don't ban them altogether.

> Regards
> J.Pietschmann

Thanks again for taking this on

Manuel

Reply via email to