6 ms·

I feel like I have the opposite problem. If the name is more than a few characters long, it starts to become non-instantaneous to recognize it. Things get much

by dilap 8y ago

I feel like I have the opposite problem. If the name is more than a few characters long, it starts to become non-instantaneous to recognize it. Things get much easier to follow with visually-instantly-recognizable symbols. So in conditions where a variable is used over a short area in the code (or where it's used _constantly_ over a wide area), I prefer short variables.

hackinthebochs 8y ago
Totally agree. If you have to scroll up to be reminded what some variable means, a longer name is good. But if its usage is a few lines away from its declaration then there's no reason to add visual noise to your code.
- shaan7 8y ago
  Its easier said than done though. We started following this few years back but then while it was "few lines away" originally, code evolved and now there are parts where its 20+ lines away. This means that short var names need to be continuously "enlarged". Well, then why not start with a "medium" name and avoid all that headache? ctx is a good enough compromise between c and context. (c can be client, config, context, certificate ... you get the point).
  - Cthulhu_ 8y ago
    Well as the article states, one-lettered variable names should only really be used in tight loops; `ctx` is a better name for e.g. a function argument.
  - yawboakye 8y ago
    Rarely do you have a case where a variable outgrows its simple name (and value) and you keep it the same. Even when a function adopts new characteristics it's advisable to change it's name or make a new one. If you initially had variable `i`, created and destroyed in 5 lines of code but that has grown to 20+ lines, I'd recommend you (1) not add the 15+ if it could be put in a function (you get to name that section of the code), or (2) rename the variable. But a 5-line code that becomes 20+ lines is both strange and interesting.
  - burke 8y ago
    This wouldn’t likely be hard to write a linter for: is the name 1-2 letters other than a method receiver, “i” or maybe “j” and is referenced more than 5 lines from where it’s declared? Lint warning.
- lugg 8y ago
  I tend to agree here but I limit that to block scope as a general rule, I also only bother with really common concepts. id identifier i loop counter j inner loop counter c general purpose non loop counter a, b, comparator methods k, v, key value setters, array iteration e, event, error or exception. Contextual rule but rarely collides. Other than those I pretty much always write entire full word names. If it's abbreviated or shorthand it likely sounds funny in my head, or it leads to ambiguation. If I need to even ask / recall for a split second it's not good enough. Programmers incorrectly place far too much weight on time to type. I write like ten lines of code on a good day. It's just not important. I want readable code that is clear and concise as possible. Every branch, block or shorthand variable raises a question I have to think about before moving on. Clever code is why I call ten lines of code a good day. It sure as shit isn't my typing speed.
wnevets 8y ago
For me Config just isn't one of those cases, HackerNewsOnYCombinatorMessageBoard on the other hand becomes an opaque mess to eyes when it is mixed with other variables of similar length and complexity.
mntmoss 8y ago
Dense code that benefits from dense variables(which describes a lot of "pure algorithms" work) I often approach by aliasing the variables to shorter ones. It's all in the same body so the context is not especially hard to lose.
- ivanhoe 8y ago
  IMHO short is OK as long as the name makes sense and is easy to connect to the real meaning. For instance "msg" is perfectly valid name for a message var, and even "m" in some short snippet of code is obvious, but calling it "a" or "x" or something completely unrelated like that is a bad idea. In matter of fact calling it something too neutral like "data" can also be as bad if it's not clear which data you mean. Context is everything in making it easy to understand.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
I think you're identifying the core issue here, that is, frequently vs infrequently read code. I'd argue that if you've spent enough time in go, variables like `i`, `conf` and `ctx` will become very recognisable and easy to skim over, if they're always used in the same context. If it's less "boilerplate" code, I'd go for more descriptive names. I think. I like the sorta described "rule" in this document; the longer the variable is used, the more descriptive it should be.

by dilap 8y ago

hackinthebochs 8y ago

Totally agree. If you have to scroll up to be reminded what some variable means, a longer name is good. But if its usage is a few lines away from its declaration then there's no reason to add visual noise to your code.

shaan7 8y ago
Its easier said than done though. We started following this few years back but then while it was "few lines away" originally, code evolved and now there are parts where its 20+ lines away. This means that short var names need to be continuously "enlarged". Well, then why not start with a "medium" name and avoid all that headache? ctx is a good enough compromise between c and context. (c can be client, config, context, certificate ... you get the point).
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  Well as the article states, one-lettered variable names should only really be used in tight loops; `ctx` is a better name for e.g. a function argument.
- yawboakye 8y ago
  Rarely do you have a case where a variable outgrows its simple name (and value) and you keep it the same. Even when a function adopts new characteristics it's advisable to change it's name or make a new one. If you initially had variable `i`, created and destroyed in 5 lines of code but that has grown to 20+ lines, I'd recommend you (1) not add the 15+ if it could be put in a function (you get to name that section of the code), or (2) rename the variable. But a 5-line code that becomes 20+ lines is both strange and interesting.
- burke 8y ago
  This wouldn’t likely be hard to write a linter for: is the name 1-2 letters other than a method receiver, “i” or maybe “j” and is referenced more than 5 lines from where it’s declared? Lint warning.
lugg 8y ago
I tend to agree here but I limit that to block scope as a general rule, I also only bother with really common concepts. id identifier i loop counter j inner loop counter c general purpose non loop counter a, b, comparator methods k, v, key value setters, array iteration e, event, error or exception. Contextual rule but rarely collides. Other than those I pretty much always write entire full word names. If it's abbreviated or shorthand it likely sounds funny in my head, or it leads to ambiguation. If I need to even ask / recall for a split second it's not good enough. Programmers incorrectly place far too much weight on time to type. I write like ten lines of code on a good day. It's just not important. I want readable code that is clear and concise as possible. Every branch, block or shorthand variable raises a question I have to think about before moving on. Clever code is why I call ten lines of code a good day. It sure as shit isn't my typing speed.

wnevets 8y ago

For me Config just isn't one of those cases, HackerNewsOnYCombinatorMessageBoard on the other hand becomes an opaque mess to eyes when it is mixed with other variables of similar length and complexity.

mntmoss 8y ago

Dense code that benefits from dense variables(which describes a lot of "pure algorithms" work) I often approach by aliasing the variables to shorter ones. It's all in the same body so the context is not especially hard to lose.

ivanhoe 8y ago
IMHO short is OK as long as the name makes sense and is easy to connect to the real meaning. For instance "msg" is perfectly valid name for a message var, and even "m" in some short snippet of code is obvious, but calling it "a" or "x" or something completely unrelated like that is a bad idea. In matter of fact calling it something too neutral like "data" can also be as bad if it's not clear which data you mean. Context is everything in making it easy to understand.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

I think you're identifying the core issue here, that is, frequently vs infrequently read code. I'd argue that if you've spent enough time in go, variables like `i`, `conf` and `ctx` will become very recognisable and easy to skim over, if they're always used in the same context. If it's less "boilerplate" code, I'd go for more descriptive names. I think. I like the sorta described "rule" in this document; the longer the variable is used, the more descriptive it should be.