4 ms·
Somebody who is too lazy to choose a good variable name in IntelliJ would also have chosen a bad (or even worse) variable name without the tooling. I don't buy
by pvorb 6y ago
Somebody who is too lazy to choose a good variable name in IntelliJ would also have chosen a bad (or even worse) variable name without the tooling. I don't buy that argument.
For class names it might be true that long compound names are driven by auto suggestions from the IDE. But I'm wondering if they're really as bad as their reputation. Somehow it's similar as for variables. You can still come up with more meaningful names if you want but I admit that auto suggestions do more harm there.
- Roboprog 6y agoI think the parent post was attributing longFuglyCapsUnpronouncabeName type identifiers to the Java language/culture, As much as (just) the editor? I’m biased, though. I HATE gigantic supposedly “self documenting” (but utterly impossible to actually say aloud) identifiers. My ideal identifiers are 2, maybe 3, syllables, with dashes or underscores, with actual documentation of WHY anything visible beyond The scope of a single function is used.
- pvorb 6y agoI guess any piece of code will have someone who finds it horrifying. I prefer long, self documenting identifiers over short (often misleading) ones any time.