"Users": sounds like an array to me
"UsersMap": doesn't add much value, what are you mapping?
"UsersById": now this is my style
Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#12I highly disagree with this advice. I understand the intent of the advice, I just think the proposed rule (in the body of the post) is a bad implementation of the intent because it is overly general.
Name your variable in a way that makes as clear as possible what the variable is used for.
He uses the example of "userMap". I think its mistake is not saying what the mapping is for. Names to users? Phone numbers to users? Emails to users? Its mistake is not calling it a map, which tells the reader that a variable behaves as a mapping. (And if it's not actually a map, then don't call it a map.)
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#13"Users": sounds like an array to me "UsersMap": doesn't add much value, what are you mapping? "UsersById": now this is my style
Agreed. I think the article is wrong to imply that the type adds no value. Even if you have typechecking, the names of variables help you understand code. Also, why should we compare variables to pets versus the many other things in our life that we do refer to by their type? I don't have proper names for my filing cabinet or office chair.
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#14"If there is more that one *Config in scope at any one time, calling them config1 and config2 is less descriptive than calling them original and updated ." The correct naming is of course "originalConfig" and "updatedConfig".
I think your proposals are still missing some sort of indication or description on what type of configurations those variables might hold. After all, we don't want to have any unnecessary confusion, do we?
Yeah, just 'original' and 'updated' are probably a better choice.
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#15I wouldn't name my variables "Fred" or "Noodles" either.
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#16I highly disagree with this advice. I understand the intent of the advice, I just think the proposed rule (in the body of the post) is a bad implementation of the intent because it is overly general. Name your variable in a way that makes as clear as possible what the variable is used for. He uses the example of "userMap". I think its mistake is not saying what the mapping is for. Names to users? Phone numbers to use…
> Name your variable in a way that makes as clear as possible what the variable is used for.
This is my consideration as well. It's like "documentation for free" or "commenting without comments".
When I get hit by a bus tomorrow, you will be able to look at my variables and have an easy, viable clue about what is going on. Reading my mind will be that much easier when figuring my code.
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#17I had two mice named Mouse, and several hamsters called Hamsted, plus a guinea pig called Guinea Pig.
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#18Clearly the writer hasn't seen Tom and Jerry.
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#19For statically typed languages yes, but for dynamically typed languages I would say not in all scenarios.
Re: Don't name your variables after types:you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”
#20My Shiba Inu would beg to differ.
犬 = Inu = Dog