Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!udel!gatech!mcnc!thorin!mckinley!biagioni
From: biagioni@mckinley.cs.unc.edu (Edoardo Biagioni)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Readable names
Message-ID: <1839@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 23 Mar 88 17:35:18 GMT
References: <2857@enea.se> <2779@mmintl.UUCP> <2899@enea.se>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: biagioni@cs.unc.edu
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 34
Summary: let's talk computers

In article <2899@enea.se> sommar@enea.UUCP(Erland Sommarskog) writes:
>Frank Adams (franka@mmintl.UUCP) writes:
>>I don't much care for either of these alternatives.  Looking at the words
>>here, 'Number' is convention and should be abbreviated, 'Of' is
>>...
>>the 'Number' prefix.)  This gives us NumAccident or nAccident, depending on
>
>You don't live as learn I see. Or else why do you use so many superfluous
>words and letters? Let's take the first sentence.
>...
>... You should have written "Not care much these alt". 
>Much clearer, more concise and faster for us to read. 
>-- 
>Erland Sommarskog       
>ENEA Data, Stockholm        
>sommar@enea.UUCP           "Si tu crois l'amour tabou...
>                            Regarde bien, les yeux d'un fou!!!" -- Ange

NO!!!!!!

Natural language needs its redundancy, to avoid misunderstandings. Yes,
there are many more compact ways of writing our thoughts down, but very
few better ways of communicating our thoughts. For example, I find it
quite tiring to read postings where the spelling of some words is
phonetic (i.e. thru or shur). Don't let anyone think the above example
is an example of "good communication"!

Ed Biagioni	biagioni@cs.unc.edu 		Department of Computer Science
		seismo!mcnc!unc!biagioni	Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514, USA

As to variable names, I try to find a concise name that expresses what
I want, but that's my own choice. I will use long names to express
abstruse usages, and I am glad to report that most of my variable names
turn out to be short!