|
Well said!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with Marc: never.
Why not? Because you will not find the time to go back and correct it - it will be permanent. That's why I "do it right" even for throwaway apps: parameterized queries, proper names, no default control names from Visual Studio, and so forth.
Do it right all the time, and you don't get into bad habits which enter production cycle.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
This. And, don't use names like 'astr'. Hovering in VS will tell you it's a string. Don't waste time and space giving redundant information.
I've said it for decades. It's usually not that much harder to be right than close to right. Be right.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope - I write all code as if it is "production" code with proper naming, etc.
One reason is to not have two styles of coding or naming conventions; it's just easier!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Never. Either write code properly, or don't write it at all.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle
So no, I've made doing it "right" a habit and would not even think about naming something "astr" or "ewww" 
|
|
|
|
|
I learned a long time ago that the temp code I'm planning on ditch often becomes the bedrock on which my applications teeter.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
rnbergren wrote: Does anyone else do this?
I have been known to use slightly 'inappropriate' abbreviations for variable names. By inappropriate, I mean in human terms 'cause the compiler doesn't care. A common abbreviation in my line of business is ASS. It appears frequently in my code, and I've never been asked to change it.
Another example is when we used crystal reports. The application object was crAp! 
The worst I've done is leave some salty comments for myself as they were well deserved.
TBH, for utility variables I always use the same ones, usually 2 or 3 letters, kind of a signature I suppose. For others, I've gotten a lot more descriptive over the last decade or so.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
If I'm writing "one-off" code I do this sometimes (e.g. a QA answer). Any code I might actually end up using for something I generally don't for three reasons: 1) harder to read for me, 2) you may never get back around to renaming everything, and 3) naming practice. Good naming is a skill just like any other.
|
|
|
|
|
Never ever do this in what you think is prototype code, it will and should come back and bite you when it goes into production.
Doing it right MUST become a habit, an automatic action that you don't even think about it. Name it correctly, format it correctly and use the most efficient and elegant structure you can think of, even in a throw away piece of code you don't ever expect to use.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
rnbergren wrote: Anyway I frequently use variables like the following.
astr - it is A String
Sytems vs. Apps hungarian, and they both wrong in update code; we read Joel[^] and do not use it, since VB6.
I will use a descriptive name. "CurrentInput", "DescText". Never will I use a form of hungarian, no matter whether sys or apps. Don't care about company's guideluines either. I write good code, despite guidelines.
We use a descriptive name. No need to include type, one can get that by hovering the mouse.
rnbergren wrote: Does anyone else do this?
I hope not, that's a sign of sickness.
--edit
I use names; if I don't have a good one in less than a minute, I pick whatever female variable name Google offers. That takes a few minutes more. Mostly going for cat names.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
modified 13-Apr-21 20:27pm.
|
|
|
|
|
No, never. I learned log ago that you have to be careful when proving a concept because once you do then you are asked to put in production. You need to have a good reason why it can't be or else it will be. Therefore, always build in a fatal weakness that will require revision before you can deploy it. The problem I often had was they want a quick PoC and even quicker deployment and there is never enough time for a shiny, finished product.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
No time to write crap code.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
I don't crap code, but if I did: Fred, Barney, Wilma, Betty, Pebbles, BamBam, Dino
I could go on...
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
VB6?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course.
'foo', 'bar', 'goo' and 'boo' are my favourites. 
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
It seems like I am the only one, but I am with you on this one... sort of.
The only non descriptive variables I use for i, j & k in for loops. This is a throw back to my Fortran programming days. i, j & k were integers, other letters were floats.
However. When I say descriptive, I do use names like 'something', 'stuff', 'thisOne', 'thatThing', etc.
Sometimes, these do creep into production code, but not in a way that is confusing to the future being that has to deal with my code.
Nothing succeeds like a budgie without teeth.
|
|
|
|
|
Wizard of Sleeves wrote: I use for i, j & k in for loops
I have the same less-than-great habit, also a hangover from my FORTRAN days (the fact that I type FORTRAN in upper case tells you how long ago that was).
I have moderated the habit a little over the years, often making the names of the form ABCi where the ABC prefix is a descriptive acronym for the array being indexed.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing worse, as a support engineer, than working through some code and coming to a line that says something like:
/* Note: Needs to be fixed before general release. */
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, my OCD won’t let me do such things. Quick an dirty code as well as production get the full treatment!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if I'm writing a very short procedure purely as a way to check it works or compare two methods that have occurred to me, and am probably doing it in a test rig, then yes, I will use short variable names for speed. But I do it properly when I rewrite the code into the actual program.
One thing I will admit to: if I write a short utility function, one or two lines... you know, to return a filename without the extension, or the nth word in a string or something... I will often use astr, x etc. And counters are i. Always. Unless there is a nested loop, in which case one of them is j. Unless the code is long and complicated, in which case one is outer and the other inner.
Should I hang my head in shame? [Please specify precise angle]
|
|
|
|
|
When learning the language (C++) I utilize class names cfoobar cgoobar and choobar as needed. Never needed a cjoobar. Also as per FORTRAN i often utilize i j k for loop counters. Otherwise I utilize descriptive variable names even lengthy ones unless the lengthy type name is conveniently nearby to provide the context.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't object to others doing that, but to think about code I do better to "think in code".
So the comments about "habits" really apply here. If any identifier is unconventional/silly I won't be focused on the intent of the code.
Secondly - the code that I do as a "one-off" often turns out to be useful and adopted in another project or context. It drags down my time and effort if I need to go back and tidy up and refactor.
Lastly - I was part of a moderately sized audience for a product demonstration once. As often happens the "presentation gods" were unkind. The demo started going awry and exposing all kinds of errors, exposing dopey-silly stuff that the developers probably NEVER intended to be part of a marketing demo.
I felt awful for the marketing guy that had to tap dance around to try to save this humiliating, failing pitch.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete Kelley wrote: I felt awful for the marketing guy that had to tap dance around to try to save this humiliating, failing pitch
Wow. It must have really been awful.
In my case if I saw a marketing guy drowning in gasoline, I'd hand him a lit match...
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but only in a situation like this:
1) I need to change something in a database, that is really complicated to do using only SQL instructions.
2) Using any of my programs, I create a new button. I never use the name proposed by Visual Studio, but in this case it does not matter
3) I create the code I need to modify the database (Read data, change it, write it back)
4) I run the program and go to the module that has my button.
4a) Of course, I press the button.
5) The job is carried on.
6) I stop the program.
7) I delete the button
That's it. The button's life is just the time it takes to change my database. (Or whatever stuff must be done)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
