Hacker News Reader

Comment by ziml77 | Hacker News Reader

For me it's not just the jumps but also overly long names. My ability to quickly scan the code is hindered by names that all jumble together because they aren't visually distinct enough. And when they read like a book, I'm going to have the same problems I have when reading books where I'm somehow reading all these words across the page but at the same time not actually processing any of it.

View on HN

I have a colleague that loves to call functions things like ‘convert_object_type_from_mm_to_m’ and ‘convert_object_type_from_m_to_mm’ . It’s unscannable. They’re the same to me.

He does not like my ‘meter_to_mm’ and ‘mm_to_meter’ because the abbreviations are inconsistent, no verb is used and he needs to go all the way to the typehint to know the input. We both have a point, but there is not really a clear middle ground without writing a novel in function names.

Ya, that is ridiculous, honestly. While it's still all subjective, you gotta draw the line somewhere! I'm a stickler for consistency myself and would be ok with `meter_to_millimeter` but the `convert_object_type_from_` is pure nonsense. Like, assuming you're talking about a language with objects, what the heck else would you be converting?? EDIT: requiring verbs in function names is also overrated. It's one of those things that's usually a good idea, but if comes down to employing some taste to decide when it might not be. EDIT 2: I'm now upset for you for having to put up with that, lol.

I’d personally go with a single function like “convert_object_type” and pattern match into different clauses such as “convert_object_type(obj, from: m, to: mm)” and so on.

I believe a good variable name should be a token. To me this means that it should be visually distinct at a glance without reading it. This runs counter to my job where 20+ character variables are common.

Token length names are really useful when working on a contained codebase. Exposed endpoints result in longer names and a messy spelling errors

What constitutes an overly long name for you? Are you talking Java-y things likes `UserAccountBuilderFactoryFactory` or even just something like `operation` instead of `op`?

For the `operation` vs `op` example, it's highly contextual. If it's used in a narrow scope or if it's repeated many times (like I've seen in functions that copy fields of one structure to another), `op` is preferable. Otherwise I'm fine with `operation`.

The Java naming is one cause of what I really have a problem with. Like that name on it's own isn't the worst because the key info is right at the start and I'm probably not going to see the type name in function bodies I'm trying to follow. It's when that naming is combined with other overly verbose naming that it gets really gets bad: `CreateUserFromUserAccountBuilderFactoryFactoryOnBackgroundThread()` By the time I've read "BackgroundThread" I'm glancing backwards to see what is happening on the background thread.

Other places where longer names make reading harder are when the names are very similar. With `textBoxXPosition` and `textBoxYPosition` the X and Y get lost too easily. You could rearrange the letters to the front to help with that, but it can still make computations harder to read: `sqrt(xTextBoxPosition * xTextBoxPosition + yTextBoxPosition * yTextBoxPosition)` vs `sqrt(x * x + y * y)` or `sqrt(tbx * tbx + tby * tby)`

I think we're mostly in agreement here, thanks for sharing!

I actually always write full variable names, even in narrow scopes. This is mostly because I'm used to programming in dynamic languages and it makes renaming much easier. I've also become so accustom to it that it makes scanning incredibly fast. For example:

    Enum.map(operations, fn operation ->
      execute(operation)
    end)

I can pretty much just read the left-hand side of that if I'm scanning really quickly, ie, ignore everything after `fn`. I'm talking micro-optimizations here, but I have been tripped up before when someone did something like `optn`.

Elixir allows for a shorthand notation for anonymous functions like so:

    Enum.map(operations, &execute(&1))

Some people hate that but again I like it due to the refactoring advantages (it becomes very simple to read once you get used to it).

I hear you on the x/y thing. You example is actually why I really prefer snake case, though I don't want to start a flame war there, haha. But ideally when you're dealing with points and dimensions you wrap them in a type or object that you can pass around and the receivers can extract simple `x` and `y` variables from them.

not OP but I think even just `operation` vs `op` should be self explanatory for the majority of devs. And documentation can dispel any doubt regarding the interpretation of the name.

Terse naming is just fine as long as the names are visually distinct from those in the same scope/namespace and as long as engineers/developers are religious about proper documentation.

i.e. members/classes/types/fn/etc getting a doxy/doc description and local variables getting a `//` comment if their meaning and use isn't easily derivable from the immediate context.

If that isn't happening however, you probably need to be pushing for more descriptive names or better docs during code review.

It's self-explanatory for sure, but I would prefer the actual domain term be Op as well. IE, I really dislike `op = Operation.new()` or whathaveyou. This breaks stuff like editor highlighting and whatnot. It's also harder to keep consistency through a codebase. Like maybe some people do `o = Operation.new()`. I find very high cohesion here helps my code-scanning a ton.

I'm not saying that would be true for anyone, just furthering my premise that it's different for everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com