On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:38:18AM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote:
> 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.
Hmm, if I remember FOP code uses b and i for boolean and int, and I
have added to that usage. I do not have a problem with it. It may not
add information, but I like the fact that it carries type info with
it. It certainly does not bother me.
> > 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.
That is my position 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.
I feel the same way.
Regards, Simon
--
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
