+1000
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree wholeheartedly! I still believe in (mostly) self documenting code > and that cannot be achieved by using abbreviations. > > Max > > On 04.07.2013, at 12:52, Torsten Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Usually I thought only the C/C++ people fell in love with abbreviations > - but > > now its our own community: > > > > in Pharo 3.0 one can write: > > > > Smalltalk os env > > > > or would it be better to use: > > > > Smalltalk operatingSystem environment > > > > in the future? > > > > So is the current > > > > Smalltalk vm > > > > better than > > > > Smalltalk virtualMachine > > > > I know: even a newcomer should know what "OS" means. At least > Smalltalkers/Java people should > > know they need a "VM". But nonetheless I think a common goal would be to > keep > > Pharo code and method selectors readable and avoid abbreviations when > possible. > > > > Also there are Pharo methods like #getEnv: instead of > #getEnvironmentVariable: > > (interesting that they wrap the native C/C++ API > "GetEnvironmentVariableA" > > which does not use abbreviations) > > > > Should we care (with an issue) and use the more readable forms in > > the future and deprecated the abbreviation forms? > > > > Or will we keep abbreviations for the lazy and easier typing? > > > > If you comment please think about the goal to get readable code, the > goal to > > get more newcomers into programming and your own first steps with > Smalltalk > > and IT ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Cheers,
