On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:56:04 -0500
Apollia <apollia112@???> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Rainer Weikusat <
> rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
>
> > Apollia <apollia112@???> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I think if I ever did code much in C, my code would end up
> > > looking very unusual and unconventional to many people, because I
> > > often like to use long, descriptive names for functions and
> > > variables, no matter what language I'm using, even Bash.
> >
> > This style isn't really uncommon for people used to IDEs doing
> > identifier auto-completion. But that's not only a bitch to work with
> > without it but also difficult to read because of the sheer
> > verbosity of the text. Eg, using an identifier
> >
> > combined-list-of-files-in-all-source-folders
> >
> > doesn't really communicate more than 'all-files' or even just
> > 'all' (if the files is evident from the context) would.
> >
>
> Thanks for the feedback! Perhaps as I get more comfortable with
> programming in general I'll stop relying so much on the crutch of
> overly verbose names. I know I overdo it to some extent.

One man's opinion: Names explaining exact action and purpose are a good
thing. If your names are too long, cast a critical eye toward your
design. If the word "and" appears in a name, that's a dead bang
giveaway that something's wrong with the design.

SteveT

Steve Litt
January 2016 featured book: Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28