Choosing good names for things is difficult (was: Strange Behavior)
Steven D'Aprano steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info writes: On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:05:29 +0200, robertw89 wrote: I invoked the wrong bug.py :/ , works fine now (this happens to me when im a bit tired sometimes...). Clarity in naming is an excellent thing […] Programs should be named by what they do […] or when that isn't practical, at least give them a unique and memorable name […]. It's worth noting, along with this useful admonition, that naming things well is one of the most difficult things to do. It is especially difficult in computer software, while also being rather more important than the typical problem of naming, because of the simultaneous constraints that the names within computer software should be: * Memorable and evocative of the meaning to humans, who have a limited capacity for remembering large sets of different names exactly, but a high tolerance (even fondness) for multiple-meaning and ambiguous words. So, choosing unique names is difficult, and the set of memorable names is severely limited. * Starkly unique and exact every time for the computer's use, without regard to meaning, and any name is just as memorable to a computer as any other. So, choosing unique meaningful names is crucially important in working with computer software. That combination – difficult but important to do well – is a perennial bugbear for programmers. You can find many essays on the “naming things is difficult” theme, with the most concise and pithy being attributed to Phil Karlton (RIP) of Netscape in the 1990s. Another wit takes that to its logical conclusion: A well known aphorism attributed to Phil Karlton is: There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. I realized yesterday that this is really only one hard problem: much of the reason that naming things is hard is that changing names is hard, so you'd better name something right the first time. Why is it hard to rename things? Poor cache invalidation. URL:http://www.jefftk.com/p/cache-invalidation -- \ “In the long run, the utility of all non-Free software | `\ approaches zero. All non-Free software is a dead end.” —Mark | _o__)Pilgrim, 2006 | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Choosing good names for things is difficult (was: Strange Behavior)
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:27:25 AM UTC+5:30, Ben Finney wrote: Steven D'Aprano writes: On Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:05:29 +0200, robertw89 wrote: I invoked the wrong bug.py :/ , works fine now (this happens to me when im a bit tired sometimes...). Clarity in naming is an excellent thing […] Programs should be named by what they do […] or when that isn't practical, at least give them a unique and memorable name […]. It's worth noting, along with this useful admonition, that naming things well is one of the most difficult things to do. It is especially difficult in computer software, while also being rather more important than the typical problem of naming, because of the simultaneous constraints that the names within computer software should be: * Memorable and evocative of the meaning to humans, who have a limited capacity for remembering large sets of different names exactly, but a high tolerance (even fondness) for multiple-meaning and ambiguous words. So, choosing unique names is difficult, and the set of memorable names is severely limited. * Starkly unique and exact every time for the computer's use, without regard to meaning, and any name is just as memorable to a computer as any other. So, choosing unique meaningful names is crucially important in working with computer software. That combination – difficult but important to do well – is a perennial bugbear for programmers. Add to that the restriction to limited character sets such as ASCII – a restriction that has only historical relevance Somewhat more seriously there is the complement to Ben/Steven's remarks: Good software systems reduce the naming-demand. Egs. 1. Computationally/algorithmically, these 2 are equivalent: a. desc = sqrt(b*b - 4*a*c) b. left = b*b t1 = 4*a right = t1*c desc = left - right sqrt_desc = sqrt(desc) However the naming load of the b is 5 times a – one of the main benefits of a high level language vs assembly In the same vein… 2. λ-expressions reduce the need to name functions. 3. Point-free style – or more on-topic Tacit Programming – reduces the need for function arguments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_programming 4. Structured programming removes the need to name control points with labels 5. And problems like this one can be reduced by using the interpreter more and named program files less. Of course even if you can check in the interpreter, to communicate with others/file a bug you may need to name a file. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Choosing good names for things is difficult (was: Strange Behavior)
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Rustom Mody rustompm...@gmail.com wrote: Add to that the restriction to limited character sets such as ASCII – a restriction that has only historical relevance Wrong. The name has to fit inside the human's brain; if it's not ASCII, that's not a problem. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
