On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Peter Hancock <peter.hanc...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > I wonder what you think about the code in o.a.f.hyphenation.TernaryTree,
> > where the author apparently did not know Java, and introduces the libc
> > functions strcmp, strcpy, and strlen, and which uses the Java char type
> > (within the String type) for coding tree pointers!
> My apprehension about certain areas of your code (and not the
> majority!) stems from such examples, and the headaches they    can
> bring.  This is old code that I had no influence over at the time and
> I do not want it to have any bearing on where the  project is heading.
> > If you wanted to make a serious case against using short names, you would
> > start first by analyzing existing FOP usage and using such an analysis to
> > establish concrete metrics.
> I do not think I have focused on the length of variable or member
> names have I?  I did a PhD in mathematics and I have a     soft spot
> for the aesthetic value of short names.  It is always pleasing to
> distill a mathematical proof to the simplist     form possible and
> using consise variable naming is often a part of that.  That said, I
> do not think that working code        benefits from this approach:
> what can seem like an efficient and powerful piece of code when
> written can prove to be an      overly difficult thing to read later.
> Unlike yourself, apparently, my memory ain't so good and I benefit
> from code that has clear intention.

Yet you continue to imply that:

short variable names != clear intention

This I must disagree with. I could use long random names and obfuscate
intention. I can uses short names and document intention (in comments). I
have agreed to do the latter. Is that not enough?

> Peter

Reply via email to