News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Don't Name Classes After Patterns. Mostly. Parent comment

Re:Don't Name Classes After Patterns. Mostly by mjburgess on Sunday August 23, 2020 @05:42AM (#24250783)
Eg., in english, "consider two kinds of graph: unweighted and weighted. Call them G_u and G_w..."

In mathematics your notation corresponds to Noun_adjective, pretty universally. I have never seen the converse.

"Consider a statistical model trained on UK data and a comparable one trained on US. Call them f_UK(x) and f_US(x)..."

"Compare a voltage applied across a resister, V_r with a voltage across a diode, V_d..."

"Consider the population growth of rabits (dP_r/dt) vs the population growth of foxes (dP_f/dt)..."

A notational description of a problem, using mathematics, always leads with the noun.

I have always considered the same phrasing in programming to just be this same mathematical convention.

"FalseVerse, RealVerse, ComplexVerse" reads weirdly to me. My strong preferece, as a physics grad cum data scientist, is VerseFalse, VerseReal, VerseComplex...

V_f, V_r, V_c

The particular variation follows the general structure, in notation.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Don't Name Classes After Patterns. Mostly by jhanschoo on Tuesday August 25, 2020 @09:53AM (#24271348)
You're tunneling in on subscript notation. Consider also max f, diam C, edge(G).

In programming you also have contrary examples, e.g. FooObserver vs. BarObserver, especially when FooObserver's implementation and BarObserver's implementation are little alike they have very different roles in the application.

[ Parent | on HN ]