Re: Long names are doom ?

To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Long names are doom ?
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
Mail-Copies-To: never
Organization: Genuity, Cambridge, MA
References: <3B0DBCAB.E3F06372@my-deja.net> <9elpia$1f19$1@ID-22205.news.dfncis.de>
Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:13317

In article <9elpia$1f19$1@ID-22205.news.dfncis.de>,
Jochen Schmidt  <jsc@dataheaven.de> wrote:
>> - "long variables names are *hard* to read.  And, you have to
>>   read though all the characters of every instance of them...".
>
>see above Example "genFunArgPrecOrder"
>
>> - "it degrades the legibility of a program to use identifiers that
>>   can't be easily remembered...."

It should probably be noted that the functions with long names are usually
*not* ones that are used frequently, so they don't impact readability or
writability very much.

And it's not uncommon to provide short abbreviations.  In particular, note
that Scheme has "call-with-current-continuation" (30 characters), but it's
almost always invoked using its synonym "call/cc".

And when you're having an online discussion about a long-named function,
it's common to make use of an unofficial abbreviation.  For instance, I've
seen many emails about the CLOS MOP that refer to things like
ENSURE-GENERIC-FUNCTION as E-G-F.  This is not unlike legal documents that
introduce a shorthand (e.g. "the Company") for a long term that will be
used frequently (e.g. "The Widget Factory, Incorporated").

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

Follow-Ups:

Re: Long names are doom ?

From: lambda3@hotmail.com (Brian Campbell)

References:

Re: Long names are doom ?

From: Jochen Schmidt <jsc@dataheaven.de>