[AccessD] Naming Conventions

Colby, John JColby at dispec.com
Wed Aug 11 12:43:12 CDT 2004


>I'm not impressed with FMS products ...

I was being soooooo nice!  ;-)

So thanks for that.

JWC

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlotte Foust [mailto:cfoust at infostatsystems.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 1:25 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions


ROTFL!  Please notice that there is a difference between Microsoft (and
FMS) no longer recommending Hungarian and Microsoft recommending you NOT
use it.  What they're recommending now, is not very different from what
they've *always* recommended.

The arguments are specious.  Why would eliminating Hungarian make code
any easier to manage??  The disciplines involved in managing code (i.e.,
changing data types) don't really have anything to do with notation,
they are procedural.  Coming up with prefixes would be a chore??  How
about the hundreds that are already being maintained and used.  Please
excuse me, but I guess that was so easy!

The assumption is that code will always be looked at on-line, never in
any other form, so you can always hover a mouse over something to find
out what it is.  Oh, you don't *use* a mouse??  Uh, well ...

Their arguments are excuses.  I'm not impressed with FMS products or
excuses. 

Charlotte Foust


-----Original Message-----
From: Haslett, Andrew [mailto:andrew.haslett at ilc.gov.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:13 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions


Dunno what this II stuff you're going on about has to do with it - MS
never recommend that and nor would I.

My point is that you seem to recommend everyone using the same standard
and quotes MS as someone to take lead from when it comes to coding.
They've
*changed* their standard which pretty stuffs up your argument. 

And strongly typing IS a primary issue in naming conventions.
Intellisens is an added bonus. Here's 4 valid points of which
intellisense is only one.
http://www.fmsinc.com/dotnet/analyzer/Rules/Hungarian.htm

Its pretty clear that the generally accepted 'standards' are changing
for many reasons.  If people choose not to change with them - that's
their choice.  Many people refuse to accept others point of view and
will probably continue using outdated methods - just as they do coding
languages. And if they're happy with it then good on them, they may well
do the job for years to come and are the right tool for many
situations..

I'll say again, as long as *A* standard IS USED - and its clearly
documented and followed - then the rest of this argument is pointless.
Think of all the beautifully structured, commented and named code you
could have written instead of contributing to this thread  ;=) 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: John W. Colby [mailto:jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 11 August 2004 1:05 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions

>Then why has Microsoft CHANGED it's recommended naming conventions..

And you call II for Inventory Item a naming convention?  Why not just
call it I and be done with it.  That's after all a 100% reduction in
keystrokes! If speed of typing the code is all that matters why add the
extra I?  It does nothing for me!

Would you call I for inventory item a naming convention?  I think we
need to redefine the term naming convention in that case.

I call it as I see it which is "in too much of a hurry to bother".  

Further much of Microsoft's argument has nothing to do with strongly
typed so much as the availability of intellisense which is just a STUPID
argument. Now I have to place the cursor over something to see what it
is.  STUPID! STUPID!!  STUPID!!!  The fact that Microsoft is proud of
their intellisense (and rightfully so, it is WONDERFUL) in no way makes
it a replacement for a naming convention.  STUPID!

>In the real world, where you develop different projects with different
teams, in different companies, you're simply not going to always be able
to use the same convention. Therefore you need to be adaptable.

Yea.  I kinda draw the line at II as a naming convention.  

I have indeed worked at many different companies, using many different
conventions.  I must admit I've never seen II accepted as a variable
name at any of them though.  

Actually I take it back, back in the wild and woolly old west days when
'C' was just getting started, and only real men used it, they did do
some of that kind of stuff.  Thankfully cooler heads prevailed, the
Marshals moved in, Judges were appointed and hanging the rustlers from
the nearest tree was banished.  

Or so I thought.  ;-)

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Haslett,
Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 10:42 PM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions


Then why has Microsoft CHANGED it's recommended naming conventions..

They recommend NOT to use prefixes now as its less relevant working in
strongly typed languages such as .Net.  Hungarian is out...
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/vbcn7/
html
/vaconVBNamingRules.asp)
(http://www.ssw.com.au/SSW/Standards/DeveloperDotNet/DotNetStandard_Obje
ctNa
ming.aspx)

Your argument about using the same naming conventions 'everywhere' so it
us universally recognised, is therefore mute. Microsoft THEMSELVES have
changed. Times change, technology changes, standards change.

The most important thing about using naming conventions is to actually
use one (as is usually the outcome of this religious argument). As long
as its documented as to WHAT convention you are using within a project,
and you stick to it, then those that follow have a reference.

In the real world, where you develop different projects with different
teams, in different companies, you're simply not going to always be able
to use the same convention. Therefore you need to be adaptable.

A



-----Original Message-----
From: John W. Colby [mailto:jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 August 2004 11:50 AM
To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions

Saving your time is nowhere near as relevant as saving the time of the
person coming in after you.  You put in 100 hours or 200 hours and are
done. The maintenance is hundreds or thousands of hours over many many
years.  If the poor schmuk coming in has to spend 100 hours just
figuring out what the heck your naming is before they can even do
anything, the company just lost all the money you saved them and MORE.
That person goes away and the next person comes in and spends 100 hours
figuring out your crazy naming scheme...  That person goes away...
Hmm.... 

II?  GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

You are not focused on the overall picture, just your convenience and
"getting it out the door".  

I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that if you went to a
Microsoft, or any other large company and told them "I want to program
for you and this is what I do and why" (giving them this email below)
they would politely show you the door.  

Using the fact that there is no "one standard" to justify doing whatever
you feel like is just silly.

John W. Colby
www.ColbyConsulting.com 


--
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ ******************** 
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may 
contain information protected by law from disclosure. 
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and delete this email from your system. 
No warranty is given that this email or files, if attached to this 
email, are free from computer viruses or other defects. They 
are provided on the basis the user assumes all responsibility for 
loss, damage or consequence resulting directly or indirectly from 
their use, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not.
-- 
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
-- 
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com



More information about the AccessD mailing list