On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Peter Hancock <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I wonder what you think about the code in o.a.f.hyphenation.TernaryTree, > > where the author apparently did not know Java, and introduces the libc > > functions strcmp, strcpy, and strlen, and which uses the Java char type > > (within the String type) for coding tree pointers! > > My apprehension about certain areas of your code (and not the > majority!) stems from such examples, and the headaches they can > bring. This is old code that I had no influence over at the time and > I do not want it to have any bearing on where the project is heading. > > > If you wanted to make a serious case against using short names, you would > > start first by analyzing existing FOP usage and using such an analysis to > > establish concrete metrics. > > I do not think I have focused on the length of variable or member > names have I? I did a PhD in mathematics and I have a soft spot > for the aesthetic value of short names. It is always pleasing to > distill a mathematical proof to the simplist form possible and > using consise variable naming is often a part of that. That said, I > do not think that working code benefits from this approach: > what can seem like an efficient and powerful piece of code when > written can prove to be an overly difficult thing to read later. > Unlike yourself, apparently, my memory ain't so good and I benefit > from code that has clear intention. Yet you continue to imply that: short variable names != clear intention This I must disagree with. I could use long random names and obfuscate intention. I can uses short names and document intention (in comments). I have agreed to do the latter. Is that not enough? > Peter >
