David Roh wrote:Different devs have their own view on how to write code; however, I believe that
it's better to have a good logical reason for a belief rather than just a
Devs come up with all sorts of ways to rationalize that their personal subjective preferences are objectively better.
David Roh wrote:Saying that Intellisense will solve the problem or that we can mouse over a
variable is not a solution because when we read code and think we understand, we
rarely mouse over or use Intellisense on what we think we already
In my experience, I can't recall ever seeing a single bug traced to a misunderstanding of the type.
On the other hand there are vast other categories of bugs that show up over and over again and which cost businesses real money to find and fix.
So given your stict approach to just variable naming could you provide some detail as to what other process practices you mandate to insure that real and costly errors which impact development efforts do not show up as well?
David Roh wrote:...but I find it difficult to believe that any professional dev
You must really work in some different domains than I do. In the sectors that I work am I am just happy to come across code (like whole methods and classes) that are easily understood from a functional point of view. Too often I come across code with problems like the following.
- Code that was obviously never tested fully
- Code that was never even used.
- Code that was not even appropriate for the business (no known use ever.)
- Code that does absolutely no error checking.
- Code that is so convoluted and has such a high coupling that it scares me just to look at it. And of course there is no unit tests for such code.