4 ms·
In principle I agree, but in practice don't think this leads to great results. Naming things well is really cognitively challenging. The human brain is naturall
by dcolkitt 6y ago
In principle I agree, but in practice don't think this leads to great results. Naming things well is really cognitively challenging. The human brain is naturally lazy and easily makes excuses to avoid thinking hard.
When something like this is adopted, the average person will look at something then quickly throw up their hands and declare that they can't name it without really trying. Many things can be named well, but it takes 60 seconds of hard thought and focus to realize it.
- mrits 6y agoBeing at a startup for 10 years had the advantage that I'd frequently run into some of my original code. My favorite real life naming example: IDataProcessor. And if you need the raw data it will be several layers deep in dataProcessor.data.data.data.
- gabereiser 6y agoI read that last line in the theme of Super Mario Bros World 1-2 song. Data.data.data... Data.data.data...
- boogies 6y agohttps://invidious.site/watch?v=OsnfYn_ZFdE https://invidious.site/watch?v=OsnfYn_ZFdE
- gonzo41 6y agoMy naming ticks are "tasks, process, items"
- sgerenser 6y agoCan’t stand the ever-popular “Manager.” Java and C++ especially loves classes that manage things.
- lyjackal 6y agoYeah, I agree with GPs sentiment, but would emphasize good abstraction over a good name. Hard to define a good abstraction though, but I think a good starting place would be to make it feel single purpose. Once an abstraction becomes too multi purpose is when configuration and case switching spaghetti begins to start.
- civilized 6y agoFor this concern to make sense, people would have to go around easily inventing good abstractions all the time, but having great trouble naming them. That seems so implausible to me. If you can't name it, that's almost certainly because it sucks.