[cl-rdbms-devel] Convenience over extensibility? Or: How to build on top of hu.dwim.rdbms?
we stick to long names (and use fuzzy completion in slime).
I will try this fuzzy completion thing but I'm sceptical. Shorter names may still give you an advantage when it comes to reading code. :) You may argue that the win in clarity is well worth it. I would would argue that while it is true that short names can easily obfuscate code it's not necessarily so. But I don't want to get into this debate. When working with other people I would always adapt. Just want to add that I'm grateful for your software, thank you. Regards, chris !DSPAM:4cd4180e48581103713428!
we stick to long names (and use fuzzy completion in slime).
I will try this fuzzy completion thing but I'm sceptical. Shorter names may still give you an advantage when it comes to reading code. :)
i suggest a bit more meditation on this. and if you still haven't changed your mind, then run experiments that include returning to code you wrote several months/years ago... :) sometimes it happens that i accidentally implement something twice because of patch organization problems and/or not having an unlimited memory. to my delight, i more often than not name stuff exactly the same way in both implementations which are quite distant in time. it also means that when i happen to look for something, i'll grep for at least a part of the name i would give it. this strategy usually very cheaply gets me to what i'm looking for. even years later... all in all, having long and descriptive names is not a question for me anymore, especially with slime's fuzzy completion.
Just want to add that I'm grateful for your software, thank you.
we're glad you find it useful! -- attila
participants (2)
-
Attila Lendvai -
Marshall McLuhan