The only time I feel comfortable using them is in short anonymous functions.
Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
11–20 of 52 posts
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#12conversely, what is the case for single letter names, even in the situations you bring up? Why would someone chose to use single letter names?
There are many cases where a single letter variable name is clearest and easiest to read.
My loop iterators are mostly single letter. A coordinate is likely to be an x, y, or z. A unit vector aligned to an axis will be i, j, or k. A point is likely to be p. A vector data structure v. The first transformation of a variable x is likely to be x’, the second x’’, etc.
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#13In GoLang we use single letter variables names in selectors and local variables in small functions
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#14In lambdas, sure, but in longer functions there's usually better way.
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#15Exceptions exist, sure. The title is that you prefer single letters generally but the submission text is more about exception situations for throwaway variables, so it doesn't quite sound consistent. The title and submission text also contain no concrete question, so I'm not really sure what you're looking for here.
Even in your example cases, though, compare these two lines:
a = arr.filter(n => n.flag === true);
a = arr.filter(user => user.flag === true);
I hate ${JavaStyleVariableName}s that are so long that it takes extra mental effort to parse the names, so I'm fully with you if you argue for appropriate variable name lengths, but having any name at all (one character is typically not a name) can give some indication of what it is, even if abbreviated or otherwise terse. The variable 'n' sounds like a number, rather than an object that would have a .flag property. While not very confusing, it's also not the most intuitive thing to call it. I wouldn't flag this as "please fix" in a code review, but it's also not better than using any name at all.
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#16I can only think of a few scenarios: math functions, string formatting, iterators, and generic code where there is no meaningful name.
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#17Yeap, me too. Especially when dealing with math/physics. Full named variables for math and physics is incredibly difficult to grok, once you're used to reading it in traditional math form.
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#18I prefer variables of the same length so that code is symmetrical. I'll sometimes use synonyms to achieve this.
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#19Clean Code advocates that the length of a variable name should be proportional to it's scope.
That's worked well for me on a qualitative level
Re: Ask HN: I prefer single letter variables
#20I've encountered this in Erlang, but when using Elixir, pipes solve this problem quite nicely.