On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Georg Datterl <georg.datt...@geneon.de>wrote:
> Hello Glenn, > > > (2) there is no standard for symbol length documented in FOP practice > > or enforced by checkstyle; I decline to exchange my choice of symbols > > with longer symbols simply because you prefer it that way; I have > > offered to add comments to my uses, and that is the most I'm willing > > to do to address this matter; > > You probably spent more years programming than I am alive, so please excuse > me if that’s a stupid question: What is the reasoning/advantage behind those > short variable names? > First, I don't use short names everywhere. Mostly I just use in local variables, but generally not as class variables. Second, I was trained in Physics and Mathematics, which uses short variable names (E = M C ^ 2). Third, I started programming in the 1960s with BAL 360, APL, then FORTRAN IV. We use short names there. Fourth, I happen to have a good memory and I have no trouble remembering the meaning of variable names. Fifth, I find that short names prevents making lines too long and gives me more room for comments. Sixth, I am going to be maintaining this code. If anyone has a problem with specific code during a merge or regression, they merely need ask me. Seventh, that's just my style, and I assert it is as valid as doing it with long names. Eighth, asking me to adhere to an undocumented convention that is not otherwise enforced, and for which there is no evidence or analysis of having been previously followed in FOP contributions is unwarranted. Ninth, spending time changing variable names is a waste of time when I could be working on adding support for other scripts. I can probably throw in a few more random reasons, but this should be sufficient. I've offered to add comments, take it or leave it.
