In VB.NET, what is the MS standard for naming local variables, Camel or Pascal casing?
For example
Sub X()
Dim myVariable As Integer
End sub
or
Sub X()
Dim MyVariable As Integer
End Sub
From the guidelines (under Names of Fields):
The naming guidelines for fields apply to static public and protected fields. You should not define public or protected instance fields. For more information, see Field Design.
Do use Pascal casing in field names.
Do name fields with nouns or noun phrases.
Do not use a prefix for field names. For example, do not use g_ or s_ to distinguish static versus non-static fields
The guidelines say nothing about private fields, though all examples seem to be using camel casing.
Nor do the guidelines say anything about local variables, though all examples also seem to be using camel casing.
I've noticed that VB.NET users tend to use Pascal casing, but C# users tend to use Camel case. I think Camel Case has many advantages over Pascal casing.
It gives you the ability to immediately discern between global and local variables, reserves _ items for private variables, and Pascal cased items for properties or global variables.
You combine that with additional information in the variable the control type for ASPX pages, i.e., btnOK, and you get a very nice list in Intellisense based on control type and scope.
I will go with the following:
Sub X()
Dim variable As Integer
End Sub
The Naming Conventions state:
Do not use "My" or "my" as part of a variable name. This practice
creates confusion with the My objects.
I know that wasn't your question but thought I should point it out as I had just read it.
As Oded states, the examples on the Naming Conventions page are all using camelCase.
Related
After reading this piece by Yegor about not using getters and setters, it sounds like something that makes sense to me.
Please note this question is not about whether doing it is better/worst, only if I am implementing it correctly
I was wondering in the following two examples in VBA, if I understand the concept correctly, and if I am applying it correctly.
The standard way would be:
Private userName As String
Public Property Get Name() As String
Name = userName
End Property
Public Property Let Name(rData As String)
userName = rData
End Property
It looks to me his way would be something like this:
Private userName As String
Public Function returnName() As String
returnName = userName
End Function
Public Function giveNewName(newName As String) As String
userName = newName
End Function
From what I understand from the two examples above is that if I wanted to change the format of userName (lets say return it in all-caps), then I can do this with the second method without changing the name of the method that gives the name through - I can just let returnName point to a userNameCaps property. The rest of my code in my program can still stay the same and point to the method userName.
But if I want to do this with the first example, I can make a new property, but then have to change my code everywhere in the program as well to point to the new property... is that correct?
In other words, in the first example the API gets info from a property, and in the second example the API gets info from a method.
Your 2nd snippet is neither idiomatic nor equivalent. That article you link to, is about Java, a language which has no concept whatsoever of object properties - getFoo/setFoo is a mere convention in Java.
In VBA this:
Private userName As String
Public Property Get Name() As String
Name = userName
End Property
Public Property Let Name(rData As String)
userName = rData
End Property
Is ultimately equivalent to this:
Public UserName As String
Not convinced? Add such a public field to a class module, say, Class1. Then add a new class module and add this:
Implements Class1
The compiler will force you to implement a Property Get and a Property Let member, so that the Class1 interface contract can be fulfilled.
So why bother with properties then? Properties are a tool, to help with encapsulation.
Option Explicit
Private Type TSomething
Foo As Long
End Type
Private this As TSomething
Public Property Get Foo() As Long
Foo = this.Foo
End Property
Public Property Let Foo(ByVal value As Long)
If value <= 0 Then Err.Raise 5
this.Foo = value
End Property
Now if you try to assign Foo with a negative value, you'll get a runtime error: the property is encapsulating an internal state that only the class knows and is able to mutate: calling code doesn't see or know about the encapsulated value - all it knows is that Foo is a read/write property. The validation logic in the "setter" ensures the object is in a consistent state at all times.
If you want to break down a property into methods, then you need a Function for the getter, and assignment would be a Sub not a Function. In fact, Rubberduck would tell you that there's a problem with the return value of giveNewName being never assigned: that's a much worse code smell than "OMG you're using properties!".
Functions return a value. Subs/methods do something - in the case of an object/class, that something might imply mutating internal state.
But by avoiding Property Let just because some Java guy said getters & setters are evil, you're just making your VBA API more cluttered than it needs to be - because VBA understands properties, and Java does not. C# and VB.NET do however, so if anything the principles of these languages would be much more readily applicable to VBA than Java's, at least with regards to properties. See Property vs Method.
FWIW public member names in VB would be PascalCase by convention. camelCase public member names are a Java thing. Notice how everything in the standard libraries starts with a Capital first letter?
It seems to me that you've just given the property accessors new names. They are functionally identical.
I think the idea of not using getters/setters implies that you don't try to externally modify an object's state - because if you do, the object is not much more than a user-defined type, a simple collection of data. Objects/Classes should be defined by their behavior. The data they contain should only be there to enable/support that behavior.
That means you don't tell the object how it has to be or what data you want it to hold. You tell it what you want it to do or what is happening to it. The object itself then decides how to modify its state.
To me it seems your example class is a little too simple to work as an example. It's not clear what the intended purpose is: Currently you'd probably better off just using a variable UserName instead.
Have a look at this answer to a related question - I think it provides a good example.
Regarding your edit:
From what I understand from the two examples above is that if I wanted
to change the format of userName (lets say return it in all-caps),
then I can do this with the second method without changing the name of
the method that gives the name through - I can just let returnName
point to a userNameCaps property. The rest of my code in my program
can still stay the same and point to the method iserName.
But if I want to do this with the first example, I can make a new
property, but then have to change my code everywhere in the program as
well to point to the new property... is that correct?
Actually, what you're describing here, is possible in both approaches. You can have a property
Public Property Get Name() As String
' possibly more code here...
Name = UCase(UserName)
End Property
or an equivalent function
Public Function Name() As String
' possibly more code here...
Name = UCase(UserName)
End Function
As long as you only change the property/function body, no external code needs to be adapted. Keep the property's/function's signature (the first line, including the Public statement, its name, its type and the order and type of its parameters) unchanged and you should not need to change anything outside the class to accommodate.
The Java article is making some sort of philosophic design stance that is not limited to Java: The general advise is to severely limit any details on how a class is implemented to avoid making one's code harder to maintain. Putting such advice into VBA terms isn't irrelevant.
Microsoft popularized the idea of a Property that is in fact a method (or two) which masquerade as a field (i.e. any garden-variety variable). It is a neat-and-tidy way to package up a getter and setter together. Beyond that, really, behind the scenes it's still just a set of functions or subroutines that perform as accessors for your class.
Understand that VBA does not do classes, but it does do interfaces. That's what a "Class Module" is: An interface to an (anonymous) class. When you say Dim o As New MyClassModule, VBA calls some factory function which returns an instance of the class that goes with MyClassModule. From that point, o references the interface (which in turn is wired into the instance). As #Mathieu Guindon has demonstrated, Public UserName As String inside a class module really becomes a Property behind the scenes anyway. Why? Because a Class Module is an interface, and an interface is a set of (pointers to) functions and subroutines.
As for the philosophic design stance, the really big idea here is not to make too many promises. If UserName is a String, it must always remain a String. Furthermore, it must always be available - you cannot remove it from future versions of your class! UserName might not be the best example here (afterall, why wouldn't a String cover all needs? for what reason might UserName become superfluous?). But it does happen that what seemed like a good idea at the time the class was being made turns into a big goof. Imagine a Public TwiddlePuff As Integer (or instead getTwiddlePuff() As Integer and setTwiddlePuff(value As Integer)) only to find out (much later on!) that Integer isn't sufficient anymore, maybe it should have been Long. Or maybe a Double. If you try to change TwiddlePuff now, anything compiled back when it was Integer will likely break. So maybe people making new code will be fine, and maybe it's mostly the folks who still need to use some of the old code who are now stuck with a problem.
And what if TwiddlePuff turned out to be a really big design mistake, that it should not have been there in the first place? Well, removing it brings its own set of headaches. If TwiddlePuff was used at all elsewhere, that means some folks may have a big refactoring job on their hands. And that might not be the worst of it - if your code compiles to native binaries especially, that makes for a really big mess, since an interface is about a set of function pointers layed out and ordered in a very specific way.
Too reiterate, do not make too many promises. Think through on what you will share with others. Properties-getters-setters-accessors are okay, but must be used thoughtfully and sparingly. All of that above is important if what you are making is code that you are going to share with others, and others will take it and use it as part of a larger system of code, and it may be that these others intend to share their larger systems of code with yet even more people who will use that in their even larger systems of code.
That right there is probably why hiding implementation details to the greatest extent possible is regarded as fundamental to object oriented programming.
This question already has answers here:
Are static local variables bad practice?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Consider the following functionally two code snippets in a single-threaded environment. Assuming there are no other methods in Foo I believe these are functionally identical.
Class Foo
Private _Bar As Bar
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar As Bar
Get
If IsNothing(_Bar) Then
_Bar = New Bar
End If
Return _Bar
End Get
End Property
End Class
And
Class Foo
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar2 As Bar
Get
Static _Bar As New Bar
Return _Bar
End Get
End Property
End Class
Today I was challenged on code following the 2nd method because "the New will be called each time". I already know that is false, but the primary objection was with regards to the use of Static. I found several references to Static variables indicating that they may be dangerous, but they were all talking about Java. However, I was not able to find any good explanations as to why.
How are these two methods different? Is the 2nd method dangerous? If so, why?
Static in VB.Net is not that same as static in Java, C#, C, or C++. VB.Net's analog to that construct is Shared. The documentation on the Static keyword is here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
In particular, I'd like to point out this snippet:
Behavior
When you declare a static variable in a Shared procedure, only one copy of the static variable is available for the whole application. You call a Shared procedure by using the class name, not a variable that points to an instance of the class.
When you declare a static variable in a procedure that isn't Shared, only one copy of the variable is available for each instance of the class. You call a non-shared procedure by using a variable that points to a specific instance of the class.
It's likely the objection comes from believing that Static always behaves like the first paragraph, even in instance methods, when we can see here that it's clearly documented that this is not the case.
Instead, Static allows you to declare a variable whose lifetime-scope is that of the class instance, but whose access-scope is limited to a single method. It's a way to narrow the potential scope of a variable, and therefore is a good thing. Additionally, variables declared as Static are rewritten by the compiler to be protected via the Monitor class (at least for the Shared version), giving them a measure of thread-safety. In other words, a variable declared as Static is more likely to have any needed locking done verses a similar class-scoped variable.
In this particular case, though, I fail to see the point. You don't really gain anything beyond an auto-implemented property like this:
Public ReadOnly Property GetBar2 As New Bar()
This probably is confusing the VB.net concepts of Static and Shared because some languages use the keyword Static to mean what VB uses Shared for: a variable/field/property/method that is shared or common to all instances of a class.
But Static doesn't mean that in VB. Instead it means a routine-local variable that persists beyond the invocation of the routine (i.e., its lifetime is object-scoped rather than routine invocation-scoped).
REF: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z2cty7t8.aspx
So in VB, Static means "routine-scoped visibility, object-scoped lifetime".
Whereas Shared means "class-scoped visibilty, class/program-scoped lifetime".
I would avoid the second approach if for no other reason than the fact that C and C# have a static keyword whose meaning is totally different from that of the VB.NET Static keyword. I generally dislike language features which look like features of other languages but aren't. If it's necessary to use a language feature despite its unfortunate resemblance to the other language's feature, I'll use it, but the VB.NET static keyword doesn't really add much here. Effectively, it asks the compiler to make the variable Private field, give it an arbitrary name which differs from that of any other field, and replace all references to the variable's given name within the method with references to the invented name.
Conceptually, use of such "localized" fields may be regarded as dubious because while one may expect that a field will only need to be used within one method, that may turn out not to be true. I wouldn't worry too much about that issue in vb.net, however, because a Static variable may easily be turned into an ordinary private field if the need arises. If when that need does arise a field exists with the same name, one may easily rename the Static variable before moving it.
In this post Jon Skeet pointed out that the following code should be changed to conform with the .NET naming conventions. Doing that would also decrease the amount of noise in the code.
Enum enUtilityTypeDetailStudentEntryWorkflow As Integer
enUTDSEW_Default = 379
enUTDSEW_ApplicantRecordBook = 380
End Enum
I must admit, I was pretty much like a sheep and was following what others have done before me. I thought the prefix did not look right and then to have it twice did not make sense either.
After looking at a couple of .NET Framework examples, it looks like this would be closer to the standard.
Enum StudentEntryWorkflow As Integer
Default = 379
ApplicantRecordBook = 380
End Enum
Am I on the mark with using these names?
Any other suggestions or comments in general?
Where I work we also use a prefix for enums (E in our case), and I must say that I like it. It makes it very easy to spot an Enum and differentiate it from a class or variable. Here's an example from our codebase:
myJob.Status = EJobStatus.Completed
Here we can easily see that the status that's been assigned to the job is the value "Completed" from the enum "EJobStatus".
My personal preference aside, if you want to follow the .NET naming conventions, then there is no prefix to enums. But the most important of all is to always follow the same conventions in a given code base.
Edit: I just saw that you also prefix the actual enum values, we don't do that though. We always refer enums this way ESomeEnum.SomeValue. In that case it's not useful to prefix the actual enum value. Also, I don't think it's a good idea to use the same prefix for the enum name and the enum values, because they're not the same thing.
I don't know about standard, but using Hungarian notation on enums and enum values is not something I have seen before.
Your second example is closer to the kind of code I normally see, so in that respect, yes, it is more standard.
See section 8.2.3 on this guideline - pascal casing and no prefix/postfix.
Guideline 16 of Section 2.1 of Lance Hunt's C# coding standards also says to avoid prefixes and postfixes.
I would say this is pretty universal - the point of having enums it to aid readability. Using prefixes and postfixed reduces readability and thus is pretty universally discouraged.
In VB.net, I don't believe you can refer to an enum value without prefacing it with the name of the enum, so it's completely redundant to "prefix" the enum value name with anything.
ie, you couldn't use
dim x = enUTDSEW_Default
even if you wanted to, you'd have to use:
dim x = enUtilityTypeDetailStudentEntryWorkflow.enUTDSEW_Default
which is just silly.
The enum prefix probably came from a C++ programmer. In C++ the enum name isn't part of the value's fully qualified name:
class Class
{
public:
enum Enum
{
Value1,
Value2
};
};
// Yes
Class::Enum e = Class::Value1
// No
Class::Enum e = Class::Enum::Value1
but .NET syntax calls for the second version. So there's no benefit to a redundant value name.
I do it in C# to avoid the compiler issue of having the property name the same as its (enum) type, which I've found I'd liked to do in the past.
I am generally not one to engage in subjective arguments over matters like variable naming, code formatting, etc. So I have no intention of starting an argument here.
I just came across this (old) blog post which recommends not prefixing member variable names:
Do not use a prefix for member
variables (_, m_, s_, etc.). If you
want to distinguish between local and
member variables you should use
"this." in C# and "Me." in VB.NET.
For C#, yeah, I get it: member variables can be lower camelCase, and public properties/methods can be PascalCase. But VB.NET is case-insensitive, so you can't really give a private member the same name as a public property except with a lower case first letter.
I've generally prefixed member variables with an underscore, but I've been told that's not idiomatic.
So really I'm just curious: how do you name your member variables in VB.NET? And is there a "standard" way?
I'm not asking because I believe there's a "right" way or because I particularly want to change my style, and certainly not because I have any desire to tell others they're "wrong." Like I said, I'm just curious.
It's personal preference, although there's widespread support for having some distinction. Even in C# I don't think there's one widely used convention.
Jeff Prosise says
As a matter of personal preference I typically prefix private fields with an underscore [in C#] ... This convention is used quite a lot in the .NET framework but it is not used throughout.
From the .NET Framework Design Guidelines 2nd Edition page 73.
Jeffrey Richter says
I make all my fields private and I prefix my instance fields with "m_" and my static fields with "s_" [in C#]
From the .NET Framework Design Guidelines 2nd Edition page 47. Anthony Moore (BCL team) also thinks using "m_" and "s_" is worth consideration, page 48.
I personally use m_ for member variables.
Although with automatic properties in VS 2010 I haven't needed to for any new code I've written recently.
I don’t like starting a line/name with an underscore since that always looks as if the line were indented by an additional space: it just makes the code unbalanced. Additionally, a lonely underscore is too inconspicuous for my taste: I prefer the identifiers to be clearly distinct.
Therefore, I periodically cycle between suffix underscore (e.g. example_) and prefix m_. I can’t decide which of those I prefer since I actually like neither. But the argument against prefix underscores partially also applies to suffix underscores.
But as you’ve remarked, some kind of distinction is necessary.
And as I’ve remarked elsewhere, I’ve had very bad experiences with case-only distinction in C# as well – it’s just too easy to confuse the names, and hence write into a private variable instead of the property. This matters if the property either checks or transforms the set value.
For that reason, I prefer to use some kind of prefix in C# as well.
I'm doing it like you.
Private _myVar as Object
Public Property MyVar() As Object
Get
Return Me._myVar
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Object)
Me._myVar = value
End Set
End Property
And in constructor
Public Sub New(myVar as object)
Me._myVar = myVar
End Sub
But I think that's a matter of taste.
The only time I use a prefix is with the private backing store for a public property. In these cases, the names are otherwise identical and most of the time the only place I'll ever reference the prefixed name is inside it's associated property. When I can finally use auto-implemented properties with VB.Net I won't even need to do that.
I do this in C# as well, on those instances when I can't just use an auto-implemented property. Better the _ prefix than varying the names only by case.
We use _ (underscore) to prefix our variables names. It's short and to the point...
Private _ID as integer
Public Property ID() As Integer
Get
Return _ID
End Get
Set(ByVal value As Integer)
_ID = value
End Set
End Property
Although a lot of the MS code seems to use m_* for private declarations, I save myself a character and just use _name for private members. My rules:
Private members are preceeded by an underscore
Public members (methods and properties) are PascalCase.
Parameters are camelCase.
Since I work in C#, having a parameter name with the same name as a property with different case is no problem. That won't work in VB, though.
Here is a VB.NET code snippet
Public Class OOPDemo
Private _strtString as String
Public Function Func(obj as OOPDemo) as boolean
obj._strString = "I can set value to private member using a object"
End Function
End Class
I thought we cannot access the private members using the object, but perhaps CLR allows us to do that. So that means that access modifiers are based on the type and not on the instance of that type. I have also heard that c++ also allows that..
Any guesses what could be the reason for this?
Edit:
I think this line from the msdn link given by RoBorg explains this behaviour
"Code in the type that declares a private element, including code within contained types, can access the element "
Your question is quite confusing but I think I've understood it as:
"Why can I access another instance (of my class)'s private variables?"
And you're right - in all OOP languages I've used you can access private variables from other instances, precisely because access permissions are based on where the code is, rather than to which object instance it 'belongs'.
It might be hard to implement copy constructors or equality operators otherwise.
Here's the section about access levels in MSDN.