I've found that in programs, I inevitably have a couple of variables that are named along the lines of numberOfBooks, or numberOfPeople. Is there a commonly used word that makes sense that's a bit shorter than numberOf?
Count or quantity are the usual suspects so you could get away with things like:
bookCount
bookQty
bookQuant
and so forth. But you don't have to use full words, as shown in the Qty abbreviation above.
If you wanted to stay close to what the other programs are using, just use something like:
numBooks
numPeople
How about bookCount and peopleCount?
I usually use "qty", short for "quantity".
Related
I want to make a variable that is condiments that the customer wants.
I thought 'condimentCustomerWants' is okay
But I would never see variable name that contains relative pronouns in other's codes.
So I asked to my friends, and he recommended 'customerWantsCondiment', which is sentence.
Hmm.. which name is proper, good, and readable?
I'll throw desiredCondiments into the mix.
Depends on everyone's coding style really. i would do
requestedCondiment
desiredCondiment
preferredCondiment
condimentForCustomer
preferredCondimentForCustomer
wantedCondiment
and so on...
HOW you name your variables is entirely up to you, however they should always reflect what the variable is actually supposed to do.
If it is: 'Does the customer want a condiment', you'd want:
CustomerWantsCondiment (true/false value, probably a boolean)
If it is: 'Which condiment does the customer want?', you'd want:
CondimentCustomerWants (for example an int value)
They sound similar, but both have different meanings.
Whatever works best for you, really.
You may also want to adhere to a variable name convention, starting your variable name with a letter, that indicates the type of the variable. That way, you will know the type of a variable at a glance, without having to look for the actual definition.
Please note, that the introducing letter(s) are always lower case.
For example:
bool bCustomerWantsCondiment;
int iCustomerWantsCondiment;
char *sCustomerWantsCondiment;
etc.
For more information regarding the hungarian notation, please look here for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation
Also, for readability, you should use the 'CamelCase' convention. That means, each time you begin a new word in the variable name, start it with a capital letter.
What is the right way to name a variable
int numItems;
vs.
int itemCount;
or constant:
public static final int MAX_NUM_ITEMS = 64;
vs.
public static final int MAX_ITEM_COUNT = 64;
In "Code Complete," Steve McConnell notes that "Number" is ambiguous. It could be a count, or an index, or some other number.
"But, because using Number so often
creates confusion, it's probably best
to sidestep the whole issue by using
Count to refer to a total number of sales and Index to refer to a
specific sale."
item_count or itemCount (there's a religious war brewing there, though)
For Java I would use itemCount and MAX_ITEM_COUNT. For Ruby, item_count and MAX_ITEM_COUNT. I tend not to use names that can be interpreted wrongly (numItems may be a shortcut for numerate_items or number_of_items), hence my choice. Whatever you decide, use it constantly.
It's a matter of personal preference, just make sure you are consistent throughout your code. If you're working with others check what's been done in existing code.
For the constant I would find MAX_ITEMS more logical than MAX_NUM_ITEMS or similar, it just sounds better to me.
It actually depends on you. The two types of naming conventions are
camelCase and snake_case
As you can identify from the naming, camel case has one small letter in the initial part of the variable followed by the Capital words
Eg itemCount.
snake case is a continuous word with an underscore ' _ ' in between the words
Eg item_count
As far as the naming is concerned, numItems is quite confusing for others to read. But itemCount is a good name for a counter variable
I've been wondering about this question too, and thought it interesting in all these answers that no one said just items, but I can see that would be a bad name perhaps if it's in a codebase that has objects or arrays, but maybe okay as like a field name in SQL.
But one downside I just realized to going with something like numItems is that if you have multiple similar fields and use anything with intellisense or autocomplete, there's a risk of accidentally using the wrong field, whereas item_count begins with the thing you're counting.
Do you think x, y, z are good variable names? How will you explain a new programmer to write readable code?
Readable code means some combination of comments and variable and function naming that allows me to read the code once and understand it. If I have to read it more than once, or spend my time working through complicated loops or functions, there's room for improvement.
Good summary descriptions at the top of files and classes are useful to give the reader context and background information.
Clear names are important. Verbose names make it much easier to write readable code with far fewer comments.
Writing readable code is a skill that takes some time to learn. I personally like overly verbose names because they create self documenting code.
As already stated x, y, and z are good variables for 3D coordinates but probably bad for anything else...
If someone does not believe that names are important, just use a code obfuscator on some code then ask them to debug it :-).
(BTW that's the only situation where a code obfuscator can be useful IMHO)
There seems to be slightly different conventions per progamming language; however, the consensus these days is to...
use pascal case
make the name meaningful
end with a noun
Here is a decent recap of what Microsoft publishes as standard naming conventions for .NET
The inventor of python has published a style guide which includes naming conventions.
There was a time when Microsoft VC++ developers (myself included) actually rallied around what was known as Hungarian Notation
Certainly there are multiple schools of thought on this, but I would only use these for counters, and advise far more descriptive names for any other variables.
x, y and z can be perfectly good variable names. For example you might be writing code that refers to them in reference to a 3D cartesian coordinate system. These names are often used for the three axes in such a system and as such they would be well suited.
I would give them some maintenance work on some code with variables called x, y, z and let them realise for themselves that readability is vital...
95% of code viewing is not by the author, but by the customer that everyone forgets about - the next programmer. You owe it to her to make her life easy.
Good variable names describe exactly what they are without being overly complex. I always use descriptive names, even in loops (for instance, index instead of i). It helps keep track of what's going on, especially when I'm working on rewriting a particularly complex piece of code.
Well give them a chunk of bad code and ask them to debug it.
Take the following code (simple example)
<?php $a = fopen('/path/to/file.ext', 'w');$b = "NEW LINE\n";fwrite($a, $b);fclose($a);?>
The bug is: File only ever contains 1 line when it should be a log
Problem: 'w' in fopen should be 'a'
This obviously is a super easy example, if you want to give them a bigger more complicated example give them the WMD source and ask them to give you readable code in 2 hours, it will get your point across.
As long as x, y and z are (3D) Cartesian co-ordinates, then they're great names.
In a similar vein, i, j and k would be OK for loop variables.
In all cases, the variable names should relate to the data
x,y and z are acceptable variable names if they represent 3d coordinates, or if they're used for iterating over 2 or 3 dimensional arrays.
This code is fine as far as I'm concerned:
for(int x = 0; x < xsize ; x++)
{
for(int y = 0; y < ysize ; y++)
{
for(int z = 0; z < zsize ; z++)
{
DoSomething(data[x][y][z]);
...
This one is a short answer, but it works very well for me:
If it would need a code comment to describe it, then rethink the variable name.
So if it's obvious, why "x" was choosen, then they are good names. E.g. "i" as variable name in a loop is (often) pretty obvious.
An ideal variable name is both short (to make the code more compact) and descriptive (to help understanding the code).
Opinions differ on which of the two is more important. Personally, I'd say it depends on the scope of the variable. A variable used only inside a 3 line loop can get away with being single letter. A class field in a 500 line class better be pretty damn descriptive. The Spartan Programming philosophy says that as far as possible, all units of code should be small enough that variable names can be very short.
Readable code and good naming conventions are not the same thing!
A good name for a variable is one that allows you to understand (or reasonably guess) the purpose and type of the variable WITHOUT seeing the context in which it is used. Thus, "x" "y" and "z" say coordinates because that is a reasonable guess. Conversely, a bad name is one that leads you to a wrong likely guess. For example, if "x" "y" and "z" represent people.
A good name for a function is one that conveys everything you would need to know about it without having to consult its documentation. That is not always possible.
Readable code is first of all code whose structured could be understood even if you obfuscated all variable and function names. If you do that and can't figure out the control structure easily, you're screwed.
Once you have readable code and good naming, then maybe you'll have truly readable code.
For the phone number: 234-567-8901, I would name variables like:
areaCode = "234";
exchange = "567";
What would an appropriate variable name be for "8901"?
Wikipedia calls it subscriber number.
It is called the line number.
Unless the software is to be used inside a telecommunications company (who would know the correct term), I would go for readability over technical correctness.
Since there is no consensus on the exact term or at least a commonly used name, I would choose something like "fourDigits" over a technically correct term "line number", "extension", "suffix", or "Subscriber line number (SLN)."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan
For the number 123-456-7890
123 Area Code
456-7890 Subscriber Number
456 Telephone Exchange or Central Office
7890 Line Number
I think the phone number segments are: area code, exchange, and extension. So, the third would be the extension.
This also has the last four digits referenced as the 'subscriber' number or 'station code'.
There is a large Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_number) that gives a lot of history but no clear term for this part of the number. It may, in some cases, be a subscriber number and in some cases an extension.
Depends on why you're doing it.
If it's just for you, you can call it "mysticdragonnohala", as long as you can remember it.
If it's to be memorable within a team project, check with the other developers who'll have to deal with it.
If it's client-facing, then check with whoever deals with the client the most.
If it's for a uni course, just make sure it makes sense (or funny) and that it's clearly commented.
Personally I'd go for "line". But "personal", "specific", "individual" "final" and "local" would all make sense.
I've always heard it referred to as the "suffix".
In this question, a user commented to never use the With block in VB. Why?
"Never" is a strong word.
I think it fine as long as you don't abuse it (like nesting)
IMHO - this is better:
With MyCommand.Parameters
.Count = 1
.Item(0).ParameterName = "#baz"
.Item(0).Value = fuz
End With
Than:
MyCommand.Parameters.Count = 1
MyCommand.Parameters.Item(0).ParameterName = "#baz"
MyCommand.Parameters.Item(0).Value = fuz
There is nothing wrong about the With keyword. It's true that it may reduce readibility when nested but the solution is simply don't use nested With.
There may be namespace problems in Delphi, which doesn't enforce a leading dot but that issue simply doesn't exist in VB.NET so the people that are posting rants about Delphi are losing their time in this question.
I think the real reason many people don't like the With keyword is that is not included in C* languages and many programmers automatically think that every feature not included in his/her favourite language is bad.
It's just not helpful compared to other options.
If you really miss it you can create a one or two character alias for your object instead. The alias only takes one line to setup, rather than two for the With block (With + End With lines).
The alias also gives you a quick mouse-over reference for the type of the variable. It provides a hook for the IDE to help you jump back to the top of the block if you want (though if the block is that large you have other problems). It can be passed as an argument to functions. And you can use it to reference an index property.
So we have an alternative that gives more function with less code.
Also see this question:
Why is the with() construct not included in C#, when it is really cool in VB.NET?
The with keyword is only sideswiped in a passing reference here in an hilarious article by the wonderful Verity Stob, but it's worth it for the vitriol: See the paragraph that starts
While we are on identifier confusion. The with keyword...
Worth reading the entire article!
The With keyword also provides another benefit - the object(s) in the With statement only need to be "qualified" once, which can improve performance. Check out the information on MSDN here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wc500chb(VS.80).aspx
So by all means, use it.