3 ms·
This article is taking its readers down a really dumb path. "At all cost" even at the cost of readability? It also ignores the possibility that good names do
by natch 11y ago
This article is taking its readers down a really dumb path.
"At all cost" even at the cost of readability?
It also ignores the possibility that good names do exist, and that they contribute a lot to maintainability.
The suggestion made is when a good name "cannot" be found, you should try to avoid naming. No. Bad suggestion.
When a good name cannot be found, you probably have muddied up the problem, and should rethink it. Or try harder to find a good name. Also re-examine your ideas about what is "good", avoiding false metrics such as "names need to be under three characters long".
- dasil003 11y ago> When a good name cannot be found, you probably have muddied up the problem, and should rethink it. Absolutely. Software as we know it could not exist without abstration, and abstraction can not exist without names for things. Sometimes a new name is required because a particular concept or application is relatively novel, but if you decline the challenge of naming it then progress stops immediately. No future applications will be built on top of an unnamed abstraction.