OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] a useful naming convention

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

The odd thing is if you are a markup modelHead, you were 
probably doing the right thing anyway.  I found the comparison 
to System Hungarian interesting because for some of our 
programmers, it is still practically heresy to suggest 
that prefixes for kinds are good whereas prefixes for types
aren't all that useful.  On the other hand, spending a 
lot of time in Foxpro, I learned to appreciate prefixes 
for type.  Saved me from some idiot things the onlyOccasional 
programmer does.

Now if I could only master USE statements across macros. :-)


It probably is a bad idea to notate a programming or 
graphics language in markup or to use markup for modeling 
but the damage is done.  Like Hungarian notation, there will 
be a counterrevolution that will do an equal amount of 
damage in another direction.

From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@gmail.com]

On 8/2/05, Stefan Tilkov <stefan.tilkov@innoq.com> wrote:

> I used to agree with you [about Hungarian notation] until I read this:
> www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
> Hungarian notation has an (undeserved) bad reputation.

+1 That's a real eye-opening piece.  In a nutshell :

"we decided that us meant "unsafe string" and s meant "safe string."
They're both of type string. The compiler won't help you if you assign
one to the other and Intellisense won't tell you bupkis. But they are
semantically different; they need to be interpreted differently and
treated differently"


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS