7 ms·
...I rarely trust these kinds of name-generation tricks. So you're probably not a big fan of Rails, then?
by rosser 14y ago
...I rarely trust these kinds of name-generation tricks.
So you're probably not a big fan of Rails, then?
- hnewser1 14y agoand what does `trust` mean? You don't trust that correct object won't be given back to you?
- andreasvc 14y agoI suppose more like trust whether the resulting code will always be correct.
- diminish 14y agowhat about using a multiline YAML text to be loaded with automatic generation of objects from class name strings? (reminder!)
- potatolicious 14y agoI'm actually not a huge fan of implicit name-generation tricks, but I'm also not entirely opposed to them. The trick here I think is consistency - is name-generated type dispatch the standard across the entirety of the codebase? If it is, go wild. If it's not then I'd be much more wary of it. Consistency and building correct expectations for future maintainers is pretty important. Doing a smart trick in one place but failing to do it in other places where it makes sense IMO tends to create a bigger mess than doing it the dumb-but-safe way everywhere.
- SoftwareMaven 14y agoI so agree with you. There are few programming mistakes that consistency in use does ameliorate. On the other hand, no matter how "good" the code, if it's inconsistent, it's bad.
- Arelius 14y agoI disagree. Consistency is only valuable so long as it helps clarity and understanding. While that is most often the case, there are exceptions.
- justincormack 14y agoAgree. Names should not matter. You are going to have to document name construction. If your library users use IDEs you are going to have to get them to understand names.