On 03.08.2013 03:28, Patrick Walton wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Brendan Eich emailed me expressing a preference for `GC<>` over `Gc<>`. > I think now is as good a time as any to have the bikeshedding debate :) > > I've noticed two styles for acronyms in type names: Java style > (HTTPServer) versus .NET style (HttpServer). Currently we are usually > using .NET style, but inconsistently (e.g. ARC). We never really decided. > > Here are a few examples of types in each style: > > * Java style: GC<Foo>, ARC<int>, SimpleHTTPServer, XMLHTTPRequest. > > * .NET style: Gc<Foo>, Arc<int>, SimpleHttpServer, XmlHttpRequest. > > I slightly prefer Java style myself because I think "GC" looks better > than "Gc", because Web APIs use Java style, and because Python does > (e.g. SimpleHTTPServer) and in general we've been following PEP 8. But I > don't feel strongly on this issue. > > Thoughts/straw poll?
I prefer Java style visually (mostly, more below), but I prefer .NET for the consistency that it brings, and the simplicity of the rule. Just studly-caps on words, no matter what they are. It makes things less ambiguous, for HTTP it's obvious, but for ARC if someone tells you to use that and pronounces it "arc" and not A R C you might not know it's an acronym and just write Arc and waste time. I can't think of a more valid example right now but I think they're out there. Also XMLHTTPRequest is frankly nasty, it's as readable as German word-combination to the uninitiated. If you don't know what XML and HTTP are, good luck finding out there are two different words in there (again just an example). So I'd say better keep heading towards .NET (BTW Arc has been renamed to that already I think?) and standardize on that. Cheers -- Jordi Boggiano @seldaek - http://nelm.io/jordi _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
