3 ms·
No, naming things is really hard. Well, giving things (functions, variables, classes, algorithms) _bad_ names is easy, giving them good names is hard. For insta
by Sesse__ 6y ago
No, naming things is really hard. Well, giving things (functions, variables, classes, algorithms) _bad_ names is easy, giving them good names is hard. For instance, when did you last see a class called <something>Manager? Then consider the fact that “manager” means absolutely nothing.
- uryga 6y ago> “manager” means absolutely nothing do you know a better name for "window manager"? i don't mean to hold that up as a paragon of great naming, just genuinely curious what you'd call it. like, i'm no fan of AbstractFactories (or classes for that matter), but i never quite got this sentiment. to me, "manager" suggests that you have a bunch of resources that should be centrally managed (created/freed, whatever), and theres's something (perhaps an object) that handles that. ofc it's really generic, and a more concrete name should be used if possible, but i wouldn't say it's meaningless
- HelloNurse 6y agoBoth cache invalidation and naming things are hard activities because they require precognition to be done well.
- fegu 6y agoOther bad names for variables and database coloumns: type, kind, val.