If I am naming a new class in an OOP language, which is a better convention:
XMLWriter
Most common
XMLwriter
Easier to distinguish
XmlWriter
No longer an acronym
XML_Writer
Removes the point of camel case
Pedantic yes, but I'm curious who uses what and why.
Java conventions seem lately to favor treating well-known acronyms like words, so: "XmlWriter"...
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-tip-namingconv.html
Java Naming Convention with Acronyms <-dupe question?
http://geosoft.no/development/javastyle.html
But nobody seems to be very consistent. Take JavaScript's XMLHttpRequest for example. What a trainwreck!
I'm pretty sure all the different naming convention people will want to string me up for saying this. But in my opinion the naming convention you should use should be the one that is easiest to read. Names are only used by humans, so therefore they should be whatever is easiest to read/understand. So for things like XMLWriter, I would probably put it as XmlWriter since that seems a little easier to read. For things that are very very common (i.e. XML) I think treating it as a word works best. If you have some acronym that is specific to your domain, then I might capitalize it so that people who don't use it all the time would understand that it's an acronym. Basically make it easier to understand the names real intention even if it makes it slightly harder to read. I think using common sense and best judgment is better than trying to stick to a absolute set of rules in naming. Although the naming should try it's best to follow a reasonable set of naming conventions.
I would say you should always prefer the most readable one (as zipper said) and atleast start the class name with capital letter as somewhere i read that its a Java standard convention and I also feel that starting with a capital letter always makes you sure that its a Java class.
Related
In Chapter 2: Meaningful Names Uncle Bob writes:
Don't Add Gratuitous Context
In an imaginary application called "Gas Station Deluxe," it is bad idea to prefix every class with GDS. Frankly, you are working against your tools. You type G and the press completion key and are rewarded with a mile-long list of every class in your system
Actually that what I discovered during my first days with Objective-C a bit more than one year ago. After Java it was quite disappointing but I thought I'm only one who annoyed about that :)
I understand, that "Clean Code" book refers to Java most of the time and Java has namespaces (packages) unlike Objective-C.
Do you use 2-3 letters prefix in your classes if you're building an app, not a library?
What do you think, is it bad language design, language "feature" or Uncle Bob wasn't right here?
Perhaps the key word here is gratuitous. In Objective-C, prefixes serve the important purpose of reducing the chance of name collisions. In other languages like Java and C++, the existence of support for namespaces makes the use of prefixes gratuitous (and a violation of the oft-cited DRY principle). In Objective-C, however, prefixes are meaningful, useful, and not gratuitous.
I was tempted to close this question, but I don't think I've seen a similar one asked before and it's a valid question. Here are my rather disorganized thoughts on the matter.
Many languages have a feature called namespaces, where the "fully qualified" class name is prefixed by a hierarchical series of names. For example, the String class in Java is, properly, java.lang.String, and a custom class is properly com.whatever.foobar.MyClass.
Unfortunately, namespaces have never been added to Objective-C, which means that Objective-C symbols (class names, protocol names, and a few various other types) cannot be placed in a namespace even when using Objective-C++ (which has a namespace feature for functions, constants, structures, etc.)
The only solution to prevent symbol collisions in shared code, then, is to use some form of name mangling to make your symbol names unique. In Objective-C, the convention is to use a prefix of two characters (sometimes the number varies) for all your classes.
This Uncle Bob fellow is a twit for telling you not to do this, because while you'll end up with a program that doesn't compile, you'll lose any benefit of namespaces that prefixes still offer. Does your app use plugins? You need to prefix. Does your app have a public API? You need to prefix.
In theory, code within a single application that never touches the outside world can do without prefixes, but screw it--keep coding cleanly, and add a prefix even there. It'll save you grief later.
Personally I almost never use prefixes. The only exceptions are classes that are somehow connected to each other or they all should be present.
An example:
Some client app for chat. Let's call that chat an ExampleChat.
Then I'd use ECMessage, ECUser, ECRoom, etc. to easily see which classes should there be.
Or if I make some custom cells for UITableView I'd use prefixes to keep them all close to each other and not struggle with searching them in a "mile-long list". Example:
ECTextMessageCell, ECSoundMessageCell, ECUploadMessageCell, ECJoinOrLeaveMessageCell, etc.
That's my personal opinion, which can not be the best. But it's still easiest for me.
Hope it helps
Well if you do not have Namespaces, name conflicts are likely to occur. You can see that in a lot of C libraries that they are using some kind of prefix. So I guess there are good reasons to have those prefixes and other reasons not to use it. But what should be the big problem to modify the completion to either just ignore the prefix of typing three letters instead of just one.
So in the end it seems to me a matter of taste. I guess it would be more important to have good structures classes with prefixes instead of a mess of classes without prefix....
It has nothing to do with bad language design IMHO. There was a time where software was not everywhere and why should one waste extra effort on namespaces? And still as we can see even nowadays languages without namespaces are used.....
I would say, that the world is not black or white. I do programming in java, with packages and yes, it is annoying to have a prefix in each class, as well as it is annoying and arguable to start interfaces with I (just like .Net used to do it).
Sometimes it does annoying me in objective-c however it has some legitimacy if you do not have packages in your language, since you can 'build' artificial groups of classes like 'NS', 'UI', 'MK' and so on in objc and cocoa.
Beyond avoiding collisions, one of the benefits that name prefixes gives is that you're immediately aware of what type you're really dealing with. Suppose you had the following code:
Color c = ...;
MultiValueMap m = ...;
From a cursory glance at the code and depending on what libraries you've used, those types could be from a number of different sources. You may have to lookup which include/import statement was made to understand what the type can do (e.g. you want to modify it but it's missing a method that you're sure is there).
In the iOS world, you would immediately know whether it's a UIColor vs. a CGColor and gain immediate context.
In the past at WWDC, Apple would host a session where they explained Cocoa/Objective-C coding conventions. I believe they mention this aspect of name prefixes so you might want to find one of the recordings that are made available. Other C developers (e.g. Linux kernel developers) also do not seem to think highly of C++ namespaces (among other C++ features) for various reasons.
I just dived into the world of using dispatch_queue a little bit more intensively and was wondering if there are some naming conventions that should be used just for GCD objects, so that the code of the classes is then more easily divided into GCD and other Code.
Or could it be that it is a bad idea to have separate naming conventions for GCD?
I'd suggest to simply stick to the usual Cocoa and CoreFoundation naming conventions. Extend them as needed.
Edit after comments:
First of all, you shouldn't start variables with an underscore as this is reserved for Apple. Instead, I recommend to postfix with underscore, like someVariable_ or prefix with something else (for example, a colleague of mine uses i_ for instance variables and g_ for globals).
Whether you want to add some kind of polish notation (like prefixing with q_ for queues) is entirely up to you, it's a matter of taste. I think it's more important that you can recognize what a variable is used for, like imageProcessingQueue_ instead of just queue_.
The problem is that this is entirely subjective and cannot be answered in an "this is the ultimate truth" way. Common sense and forethought are important and laziness (abbreviated names or very generic terms like simply queue_) should be avoided.
I am wondering what is actually the preferred way of naming variables: some_variable or somevariable.
Looking at some libraries, I have seen both. What is more, some wide-spread style conventions like Google C++ Style Guide allow both.
What do you prefer and why? Is there a rule or good practice which tells when to use which? And does the same applies to argument names in functions/methods?
And is mixing those two conventions a good idea? If yes, when should the first naming conventions be used, and when the second one?
Use what's most readable and least confusing.
You should follow whatever naming convention makes sense to you.
For me, I always use camelCase for variables and PascalCase for public methods and properties.
The C++ standard libraries use both conventions for function and class names, though the _ convention is apparently gaining popularity (it's used in most recent additions, since the STL got standardized). Stick with your project guidelines, or make up your own, but apply them consistently.
My personal style is to use some_function for functions, somevar for variables, PascalCase for class names. I don't have a copy of The C++ Programming Language by Stroustrup around, but I believe this is his style as well.
What are some recommended best practices to follow when naming variables? Global variables?
When working with a solution having many projects, insure that all public names indicate a relevant context. Do not use identical names in different projects. Compilation works but maintenance can be a nightmare.
To a large extent it does not matter what standards you decide to adopt. The most important factor is that you stick to it! Consistency is really important and as long as you manage that your code will be significantly easier to read and maintain in the future.
As one idea you could check out the hungarian notation used for Win32 and C++ programming under windows.
Notation Definition (PDF)
Keep your names meaningful, the code should self document, avoid abbreviations the length of the name isn't usually a problem in most languages.
Boolean variables should begin is* or has*, try to choose a name that avoids requiring negation in tests as the ! can often be missed.
Group variables associated with an item by using a common prefix i.e. documentTitle, documentType, documentSize etc.
Avoid using numbers to distinguish variables unless an index is involved.
Forget about Hungarian notation.
Some broad strokes:
Use i, j, k for loop variables. It's very common practice and easy to understand.
For boolean (true/false) variables, use predicate names like isDirectory or canExecute.
Whether you camelCase or use_underscores is just a matter of preference.
It may be a good idea to decorate variables with Hungarian notation describing the meaning of the variable, e.g. iMax could be the index of the maximum element in an array. It's less useful to decorate names with the language-level type information. For a very entertaining explanation of the difference, and why one is good and the other bad, see Joel's essay.
Best to not start them with numbers or symbols in some languages. Also, don't use reserved functions of the language you're using. For example: in C# you wouldn't want to name it "if", "else", "void" "try" etc...
I'm by no means an experienced programmer, but I've somewhat had it drilled into me at college and uni, and have seen it on sites like this, that when naming variables they should mean something.
Maybe this is an education thing, but it does make sense - the variable name should make it easily apparent what that variable is used for, anywhere in your code. It comes down to, I think, the fact that code shouldn't need masses of comments - it should explain itself. Variable naming is a part of that.
I'm currently in University and they're pretty particular about following their standards.
They've told me this:
All classes must start with a capital
letter
Correct
public class MyClass {}
Incorrect
public class myClass {}
public class _myClass {}
All methods must start with a
lowercase letter
Correct
public void doSomething() {}
Incorrect
public void DoSomething() {}
public void _doSomething() {}
all variables must start with a
lowercase letter
Correct
string myString;
Incorrect
string MyString;
string _myString;
Yet in my last year of programming, I've been finding that people are using much different rules. It wouldn't matter if it were just a few people using the different rules, but almost everywhere I see these different practices being used.
So I just wanted to know what the reasoning behind the above standards is and why some of these other standards are being used: (are they wrong/old standards?)
Most methods I've seen start with a capital letter rather than a lowercase-- Pretty much any of Microsoft's methods I've been using from their imported namespaces. This is probably the most common one I've seen that I don't understand
A lot of people use _ for class variables.
I've seen capitals on variables ie. string MyString;
I know I've missed a few as well, if you can think of any that you could add in and give an explanation for that would be helpful. I know everyone develops their own coding styles, but many of these practices have reasons behind them and I would rather stick with what makes the most sense.
Thanks,
Matt
There is no valuable reason to choose one coding style rather than an other one.
The most important thing is to agree on a coding style with the people you are working on. And to help you to all agree on a coding style, your professor told you a coding style.
Most of the time, it is just a point of view. So, just follow your professor's coding style if you have to code with the university....
standards are arbitrary, like which side of the road to drive on; just do it like they tell you to do it ;-)
Most people are talking about naming convention style, but there are other things to consider when approaching naming conventions, such as what you actually name a routine.
Routine (methods, functions, and procedures) names should typically by in the form of a strong verb + object, regardless of how you format it. For example:
paginateResponse()
or
empty_input_buffer()
as (respectively) opposed to
dealWithResponse()
or
process_input_buffer()
Both "dealWith" and "process" are verbs, but they are ambiguous and cause any other programmers working with your code in the future to have to consult the actual routine definition to determine what it really does.
"Strong" verbs, on the other hand, as shown in the first two examples, are much more powerful in their descriptive power and really pin down what the routine is doing.
This makes your code easier to read as it is self-documenting and leads to higher levels of cohesion.
Also, as a personal point of style, I try to avoid at all costs using "my" in any name.
Standards are only standards if they are followed, and every company or institution has their own standards. It is one of the worst parts of programming. :D
Speaking specifically about the leading _. From my experience this is mostly used on variables that are declared private within a class. They are usually coupled with a method to retrieve them that has the same name without the leading _.
I am trying to follow the rules from Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable .NET Libraries by Krzysztof Cwalina and Brad Abrams
Guidelines in this book are presented in four major forms: Do, Consider, Avoid, and Do not. These directives help focus attention on practices that should always be used, those that should generally be used, those that should rarely be used, and those that should never be used. Every guideline includes a discussion of its applicability, and most include a code example to help illuminate the dialogue.
Also, you can use FxCop to check your compliance with those rules.
Standards help with readability, and therefore improve maintainability. (because when you can read the code faster, easier and more accurately, you can debug and repair it, or enhance it, in less time and with less effort.)
They have no effect on reliability or availability, cause the computer doesn't care what the variables are named or how the souurce code is formatted.
If you code is well-organized and readable, you have achieved the objective, regardless of whether or not it conforms exactly to anyone elses "standard".
This says nothing, of course, about how to handle the environment where "standards" are high on someone's list of developer evaluation tools, or management metrics...
I see logic behind capitalisation of classes and variables; it means you can do things like
Banana banana; // Makes a new Banana called banana
I've been learning Qt recently, and they follow your conventions to the letter. I wouldn't ever follow Microsoft's naming conventions!
The standards I've seen echo what's in the Framework Design Guidelines. In the examples you've stated above, I don't see you distinguishing between visibility (public/private).
For example:
Public facing methods should be PascalCase: public void MyMethod() ...
Parameters to methods should be camelCase: public void MyMethod(string myParameter) ...
Fields which should always be private, should be camelCase. Some prefer the underscore prefix (i do) to distinguish it from method parameters.
The best bet on standards is to have your team agree upon conventions up front when the project kicks off, you'll find everything much more consistent.
Coding styles are based on personal preferences and to a large extent the features of the language that you're using.
My personal take is that it's more important to be consistent with a convention than picking the "right one". People can be dogmatic about they're preferred style and things can often delve into a religious war.
All classes must start with a capital letter - This goes hand-in-hand with variable naming and helps prevent confusion that would arise if you had both classes and variables named with the same rules. My preference is a capital letter because I'm used to it and it follows the guidelines for my preferred language (C#).
All methods must start with a lowercase letter - same goes, although I start my methods with an uppercase character (as per C# guidelines).
All variables must start with a lowercase letter - this, I believe, is dependent on you language's scoping features. Often people prefix variables (usually an underscore or a character like "g") to indicate a variable's scope ("g" might mean "global"). This can help prevent confusion where variables have the same names in different scopes. My C# driven preference: all variables have start with a lowercase letter and I use "this." to reference a global variable of the same name where scope is a problem (this usually only occurs in a class's constructor).
I can't let 3. go by without mentioning Hungarian notation (which is grossly misused and misunderstood). Joel has a great article that helped me understand these better.
In addition to the main point, that while any specific standard is essentially arbitrary but it's important to have some agreed upon standard, I'd also add that some standards are ubiquitous enough to have achieved the status of the "correct" way to do things.
For example, in java, class names in professional code are always in CamelCase. I'll qualify the always in saying that your code will compile if you break the standard, and you may occasionally find some open source projects that break the convention as well, but I believe that most people would take that as a sign that the author is not too familiar with the language. Most of your professors guidelines are fairly standard (for java, in any case). Being radically different in this case, apart from annoying your professor, will probably irritate total strangers ;)
It's interesting to me that some languages seem to have taken this standardization to heart, and enforce capitalization to have specific meaning (e.g. Haskell).
The rules you're citing are those used pretty universally in the Java world.
Are you doing Java code at university? If not, it may be that they were previously teaching Java, then switched to C# but kept the naming conventions.