[
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. :-)
len
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:
http://
> 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"
|
