5 ms·

I just use reader//req. Code is instantly easier to read for me personally and no time has been wasted. It's all preference, of course.

kevmo314 4y ago
Sometimes you run into packages called reader which makes for a less fun time using variable names that are also words.
rlabrecque 4y ago
This is much nicer for other people coming into this. It's the same problem with spoken language and slang, slang is better if you know it, worse if you don't.
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  Sorry to be pedantic (well, not really it's M.O. for a hacker news commentor after all, isn't it?) , but as someone who knows a few languages, slang is not an issue with spoken languages at all. You learn a language by full immersion with other speakers, who impart that knowledge unto you. Unless all you are doing is conversing with grammaticians and newscasters, you will pick up on regional and local differences, euphemisms, and slang.
shepherdjerred 4y ago
I don't believe so. Imagine you're new to Go and you haven't mentally mapped all of these abbreviations. What would you rather read, `r` or `reader`?
- jrockway 4y ago
  Designing an API that "stutters" is a very common mistake that many programmers make. reader.Read() is pretty jarring. There is also nothing wrong with naming variables after what they're for instead of what they are. Consider io.Copy(dst, src). That's nicer than io.Copy(reader1, reader2).
  - pindab0ter 4y ago
    But not necessarily nicer than io.Copy(destination, source).
  - shepherdjerred 4y ago
    Sure, so call your reader `file` or `network` or `stream`. Don't call it `r`. Nobody is charging you by the character. It isn't a huge deal when the code is simple, e.g. you create a reader named `r` and in the next line you use it. That's easy to understand. The problem is that the pattern propagates. A few more lines of code are added, the reader is still named `r`. It's name `r` here, so we start putting it in a struct as `r`. Soon enough the codebase is littered with instances of `r`. Not great.

kevmo314 4y ago

Sometimes you run into packages called reader which makes for a less fun time using variable names that are also words.

rlabrecque 4y ago

This is much nicer for other people coming into this. It's the same problem with spoken language and slang, slang is better if you know it, worse if you don't.

dimitrios1 4y ago
Sorry to be pedantic (well, not really it's M.O. for a hacker news commentor after all, isn't it?) , but as someone who knows a few languages, slang is not an issue with spoken languages at all. You learn a language by full immersion with other speakers, who impart that knowledge unto you. Unless all you are doing is conversing with grammaticians and newscasters, you will pick up on regional and local differences, euphemisms, and slang.

shepherdjerred 4y ago

I don't believe so. Imagine you're new to Go and you haven't mentally mapped all of these abbreviations. What would you rather read, `r` or `reader`?

jrockway 4y ago
Designing an API that "stutters" is a very common mistake that many programmers make. reader.Read() is pretty jarring. There is also nothing wrong with naming variables after what they're for instead of what they are. Consider io.Copy(dst, src). That's nicer than io.Copy(reader1, reader2).
- pindab0ter 4y ago
  But not necessarily nicer than io.Copy(destination, source).
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  Sure, so call your reader `file` or `network` or `stream`. Don't call it `r`. Nobody is charging you by the character. It isn't a huge deal when the code is simple, e.g. you create a reader named `r` and in the next line you use it. That's easy to understand. The problem is that the pattern propagates. A few more lines of code are added, the reader is still named `r`. It's name `r` here, so we start putting it in a struct as `r`. Soon enough the codebase is littered with instances of `r`. Not great.