Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!enea!sommar From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Readable names Message-ID: <2902@enea.se> Date: 23 Mar 88 12:12:08 GMT References: <2857@enea.se> <25668@cca.CCA.COM> <2883@enea.se> <25810@cca.CCA.COM> Reply-To: sommar@enea.UUCP(Erland Sommarskog) Followup-To: comp.lang.misc Organization: ENEA DATA AB, Sweden Lines: 36 Richard Harter (g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP) writes: > I will have to disagree here. As a caveat, I will immodestly >say that [some of] my code has been pointed out as exemplars of clear, >well written, well documented code. Well, I haven't seen it, so I can't judge. You have to post some of that wonderful code. :-) > Long names take longer to read and to write. In particular, it >is harder to understand complicated statements. Let me illustrate with >a ridiculous example, in no particular language: I beginning to feel that I am repeating myslef. But it takes longer to read "na" than "NumberOfAccidents", unless you managed to burn a hard link that gives an immediate understanding of "na". Else you have to waste time to look it up or recall what it means. Same may be valid for typing: "What abbreviation did I use?" The use of your example (deleted for brevity) is that it shows that names *can* be too long names sometimes, and that in certain circumstances short names are preferable. But we have already agreed on that, haven't we? >Another point is that the sort of code that I write and >prefer to maintain is written in small modules -- short names are much >more supportable if their scope is small. Yes, short names are more acceptable in a small scope. But even if your modules are small, you have a lot of global names: procedures, types, constants, enumeration values and field elements in records. You use your short names for these too? -- Erland Sommarskog ENEA Data, Stockholm sommar@enea.UUCP "Si tu crois l'amour tabou... Regarde bien, les yeux d'un fou!!!" -- Ange