Scott Marcus
marcus at tsstech.com
Thu Aug 12 06:21:22 CDT 2004
In production code, I do not use just rs for a variable to hold a recordset.
I usually do something like...
dim rsEmployees as Recordset
If I'm writing a test function, I may use rs.
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 5:37 PM
To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions
Do you ever use rs for Recordset?
Dim rs As Recordset
Set rs = CurrentDB.OpenRecordset("tblSomething",dbOpenTable)
Why use rs? Or do you use rsSomethingTable?
Drew
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Scott Marcus
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:56 PM
To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving
Subject: RE: [AccessD] Naming Conventions
Andrew,
The point is that Microsoft is using some kind of convention. 'ii = new
Inventory Item' (as Drew suggested) isn't a naming convention for easily
maintained code.
Scott Marcus
-----Original Message-----
From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Haslett,
Andrew
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 12:13 AM
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continue using outdated methods - just as they do coding languages.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_ObjectNa
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
--
_______________________________________________
AccessD mailing list
AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com