Why we need a book about naming

Re:Why we need a book about naming by vbezhenar on Thursday February 13, 2020 @10:40AM (#22318550)

IMO short names are perfectly acceptable and even preferable as a local variable names withing short functions, when context is obvious and everything fits onto one screen. I would prefer

    for (int i = 0, len = string.length(); i <= len; i++) {
        char c = string.charAt(i);
        if (c == '\t') {
            return true;
        }
    }
    return false;

rather than something like

    boolean tabFound = false;
    int stringLength = string.length();
    for (int characterIndex = 0; characterIndex <= stringLength; characterIndex++) {
        char character = string.charAt(characterIndex);
        if (character == '\t') {
            tabFound = true;
        }
    }
    return tabFound;

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why we need a book about naming by viklove on Thursday February 13, 2020 @12:06PM (#22319324)

Naming a variable solely after its type is never particularly useful. A name like `currentChar` would probably enhance readability. Of course if your code is just 2 lines long, `c` works just fine (that's not usually the case though).

You should probably abstract away some of that logic though (and `string` isn't a great variable name either):

    boolean tabFound = includes(line, '\t');

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why we need a book about naming by vbezhenar on Thursday February 13, 2020 @04:14PM (#22321492)

How would you name an abstract string without any implied meaning?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why we need a book about naming by viklove on Thursday February 13, 2020 @06:37PM (#22322489)

If the functionality you're writing is truly that abstract, an abstract variable name is fine. Your example didn't include the method signature though, so I assumed it was a part of some larger (concrete) code block.

[ Parent | on HN ]