Arthur Fuller
artful at rogers.com
Wed Aug 11 13:33:39 CDT 2004
A) Would you kindly tone down the vitriol? My eyes start to hurt when you start yelling :) B) MS dropped the notion of Hungarian prefixes. That is quite a different issue than "should Inventory Item be represented by II?" A. -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of John W. Colby Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:35 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