Hi,
let me put some more fuel on the flamewar :) I'm Hungarian, and I'm
pretty sure Charles Simonyi would agree that, with a language like
Java, Hungarian notation is pointless... and the underscore notation
in Tapestry is in fact hideous...
I personally like the I prefix for interfaces, but can live without
them.. If you don't use that prefix, you'll end up suffixing Impl to a
bunch of simple classes... so whatever, I don't really var, just don't
break my existing code for the sake of prettier names, that's all I
care about :)
Oh, and the curly braces should start on the same line... and I like
tabs... 4 character wide... That's the One True Way :)
regards,
viktor
On 4/22/05, Erik Hatcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Mind Bridge wrote:
> > By the very same logic we should also remove the '_' prefix from
> > member variables as well and make them look the same as local
> > variables, no?
>
> Well, I certainly don't use _ prefixes :) I think its hideous.
>
> But the difference is that the I-prefixes are external API whereas the
> _junk is internal. The external interface is what folks see and use.
> Folks that just look at tapestry-3.xx.jar do not see the internal
> _stuff.
>
> > Hungarian notation does have its uses.
>
> Bah! Not in Java it doesn't.
>
> > You say that it is redundant to have 'I' when you already have
> > declared the type as an 'interface'. The problem is that 'interface'
> > is declared in another file. Having to load/understand that other file
> > in addition to what you are doing at the moment is problematic.
>
> I don't buy it. It is not problematic at all. Why does anyone need to
> know that there is an interface or a class under it anyway? Show me a
> use case where it matters. It certainly doesn't matter what I get back
> here:
>
> IPage page = cycle.getPage("Foo")
>
> Why does the developer using this construct need to know or even care
> what is returned?
>
> > In a company that can standardise on an IDE (or a set of IDEs) it
> > probably makes sense to relax rules like that a little bit as the IDEs
> > can compensate. I strongly disagree that this can be done in an
> > open-source project when there is a good alternative however. At the
> > very least that places a limitation on the people who join and the
> > tools they employ.
>
> Show me one other Java open source project that employs Hungarian
> syntax. None that I use but Tapestry.
>
> > I agree that the matter is more or less closed, as Howard has already
> > decided to remove the 'I's from Tapestry and given that he writes the
> > majority of the code, his opinion does matter a lot. I should have
> > spoken out when there was a vote on that in tapestry-dev (was there
> > one actually?). Nevertheless, what I am saying may be of consideration
> > in the future.
>
> I respect your opinions as much as Howard's, but I still reserve the
> right to disagree :) Hungarian notation seemed to have it's place in C
> coding, but only in Tapestry have I seen it in Java. Should we start
> calling variables like this:
>
> String sName = "Erik";
>
> too?! ;)
>
> Erik
>
>
> >
> >
> > Erik Hatcher wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Apr 22, 2005, at 5:53 AM, Mind Bridge wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Do you have to 'implement' or 'extend' a particular type? Can you
> >>> have multiple inheritance with that type or not? Can you instantiate
> >>> it?
> >>>
> >>> The answers of those questions are clear with 'IPage'. If 'Page' can
> >>> be both a class or an interface, you have to look through the code
> >>> to find that out.
> >>>
> >>> Interfaces and classes are two rather different concepts. It seems
> >>> to me that they need to be distinguished clearly. Removing the 'I'
> >>> in front of the name and the characters that saves are a much
> >>> smaller win compared to the loss of clarity and the time wasted in
> >>> figuring out what can be done with that type.
> >>
> >>
> >> I disagree. Putting an "I" in front of something that is declared as
> >> an "interface" already is redundant. My IDEs (I juggle between
> >> Eclipse and IDEA) both easily show me what kind of beast a particular
> >> reference is if I want to know. In most cases its irrelevant whether
> >> you're dealing with one or the other. Tapestry is the exception here
> >> - no other API I work with uses this old-school Hungarian notation.
> >>
> >> It's not really worth dwelling on, though. Howard has already agreed
> >> that moving forward the I-prefix will be dropped for new code. The
> >> question now is what to do about the existing interfaces. Putting a
> >> cleaner name in interface hierarchy (RequestCycle extends
> >> IRequestCycle, or vice versa) and deprecating the I-prefixed stuff
> >> seems to make sense. This will be ugly though - as method signatures
> >> using those interfaces will need to be duplicated with the old one
> >> deprecated - right?
> >>
> >> Erik
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 4/21/2005
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
