On 02/02/2015 05:56 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday 02 February 2015 17:41:54 Jon A. Cruz wrote: >> Even factoring in camel case, Java also specifies that namespaces should >> be lower-case. Qt could be considered the outlier here as it started as >> a proprietary commercial product that was not following common C++, but >> creating a custom blend with Objective C and such. Trolltech was also >> focused on selling into the MS Windows developer environment so that is >> another factor in regards to their naming. > > Indeed, MFC classes are also capitalised with CamelCase, but neither Java nor > MFC classes are the origin, since the early Qt classes showed up in Eirik > Chambe-Eng's doctoral thesis and that predates those two frameworks. Of > course, it also predates the C++ standard by 7 years, though there were > prototypes and proposals of what would become STL. > >> So we have three out of the four referenced areas promoting lower-cased >> namespaces. Those also come from people working from a clean language >> viewpoint as opposed to that of a middleware toolkit product. > > I think we fall into the category of "middleware product" ourselves. > >> And to be clear, I also personally prefer CamelCase naming with classes >> capitalized. > > I don't mind the namespace either way. In fact, I prefer we use "iotivity" in > all-lower since then we don't have to tell people how to capitalise properly. >
heh. Good point. I think a key thing is that Qt clearly started before C++ had solid namepaces implemented. So also the original "Q" prefixes were important to avoid collisions at that time. (Oh, and my anecdotal evidence also backs lower-cased namespaces. When Inkscape was switched to C++ 10+ years ago it chose uppercase namespaces, and new programmers are constantly getting slowed down by that.)
