3 ms·
> objectively uglier Not sure why'd you'd say "objectively" when it's clearly not, the hint being the word "ugly." I can certainly appreciate the limitation o
by wild_preference 8y ago
> objectively uglier
Not sure why'd you'd say "objectively" when it's clearly not, the hint being the word "ugly."
I can certainly appreciate the limitation of "extensions will always be three characters". In fact, I wasn't exposed to extensions habitually longer than that until I did iOS dev. "Main.storyboard" "Model.xcdatamodeld" So if we're going to talk about ugly, I'd start there. ;)
- thx4allthestuff 8y agoBeauty is in the eye of the beholder, so yes, in other words completely subjective.
- laumars 8y agoSorry, as another poster commented, I did mean "subjectively" (doh!) xcdatamodeld is definitely ugly (though main.storyboard is ok in my personal opinion) and I'm sure there will be other examples where file extensions have been taken too far. I think if one wants to use long extensions then the extension needs to at least be readable at a glance (eg xcdatamodeld is ugly to read - even if you switched it the other way around, xcdatamodeld.model would still be unpleasant). So I'd argue that xcdatamodeld is more of an example of a poor naming convention than a problem with longer extensions (I say this with no experience of iOS development, however I see the same problem quite as acutely in the other languages and platforms I've developed on). It should also be noted that my argument was really more focused on people who shorten already short 4 character acronyms - just for the purpose of making it 3 letters (eg the yaml and html examples I gave).