As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Which of the following three options would you choose for a property name in C#, and why?
YearToDateWages
YTDWages
YtdWages
I would go with 1. I prefer not to abbreviate anything, unless it's a super-common acronym that would be ridiculous to spell out. Something like "HyperTextTransferProtocolRequest" would be ridiculous to spell out, so it's safe to abbreviate that as "HttpRequest." It's a little subjective, but when in doubt, I tend to not abbreviate.
If you decide to go with 2 or 3, I'd probably vote for 3, based on the recommendations from the "Framework Design Guidelines." It basically says that for acronyms that are 3 or more letters long, you should capitalize the first letter and lower-case the rest. It's a little ambiguous on 2-letter acronyms... Some people prefer to capitalize all letters like "ID" and some prefer to go with "Id". The guideline is to actually capitalize all letters of a 2-letter acronym, but that kind of contradicts with the guideline for 3+ letter acronyms, so people do it both ways.
I would use YearToDateWages, because without that being in the list I wouldn't know what you were talking about.
See also the general naming guidelines on MSDN:
In general, you should not use abbreviations or acronyms. These make your names less readable. Similarly, it is difficult to know when it is safe to assume that an acronym is widely recognized.
For capitalization rules for abbreviations, see Capitalization Conventions.
Do not use abbreviations or contractions as parts of identifier names.
For example, use OnButtonClick rather than OnBtnClick.
Do not use any acronyms that are not widely accepted, and then only when necessary.
Emphasis in original.
bool ShouldIUseAbbreviate(string abbreviate_)
{
foreach (var peer in myPeers)
{
if (!peer.CanGetTheMeaningWithinOneSecond(abbreviate_))
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
I think the first one is best because it is self descriptive.
Microsoft suggested naming convention rule out #2
anything with > 2 acronym letters should be Xxx not XXX
but 2 should be XX
I like less typing so I would go with YtdWages
It depends.
If you are making a library that will see external use, the .NET Framework Design Guidelines say that #1 is preferred.
If it's an internal application/library, then I recommend using the format that is consistent with your teams development standard.
I would opt for the full name rather than one featuring an acronym. It is more descriptive, and while "YTD" may be obvious to some, it might not be to everyone. YearToDate is not excessively long and the meaning is clear.
Is there a reason why you would not use the first one?
It is not only for others; if you have to change something in your own code 2 years later, good, descriptive names will help you.
The .Net framework seems to follow mostly #1. So I would stick with it. Abbreviations should be avoided except where extremely commonly known at the class level. Of course for local(function) variables this is much less strict and I would say that abbreviations and short names are much more appropriate so as to make the code smaller and more concise.
Examples of good abbreviations are XML and HTTP. Who is seriously going to write
string x=myobject.HyperTextMarkupLanguageOutput;
I vote for number 1 as well.
There will be very few times when you do NOT want a descriptive name.
Visual Studio will assist you with the long names.
Semi off topic note:
If you cant find a suitable name... perhaps the planned usage is not that clear after all ;)
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I am new to C# and have to maintain a C# Application.
Now I've found a method that has 32 Parameters (not auto-generated code).
From C/C++ I remember the rule of thumb "4 Parameters". It may be an old-fashioned rule rooting back to old 0x86 compilers, where 4 Parameters could be accommodated in registers (fast) or on stack otherwise.
I am not concerned about performance, but I do have a feeling that 32 parameters per functions are not easy to maintain even in C#.
Or am I completely not up to date?
What is the rule of thumb for C#?
Thank you for any hint!
There is no general consensus and it depends on who you ask.
In general - the moment readability suffers, there are too many...
Bob Martin says the ideal number of parameters is 0 and that 3 is stretching it.
32 parameters is a massive code smell. It means the class has way too many responsibilities and needs to be refactored. Even applying a parameter object refactoring sounds to me like it would hide a bad design rather than solve the issue.
From Clean Code Tip of the Week #10:
Functions should have a small number of arguments. No argument is best, followed by one, two, and three. More than three is very questionable and should be avoided with prejudice.
Hmmm 32 parameters is way too much.
There are as many rules as people i guess. However, common sense dictates that more than 6 becomes unwieldy.
When you have so many parameters it's always better to pass an object as a single parameter and have the parameters as properties, at least is easier to read.
C# doesn't limit maximum number of parameters, AFAIK.
But IL does: 0x1FFFFFFF.
Of course, this post isn't a guide to write methods with huge amount of parameters.
I believe that a common feeling from the developer community is about 5 or 6 parameters maximum. The times that I've seen methods like yours, it is someone doing something like "SaveCustomer" and pass every field instead of passing a customer object.
There is no silver bullet answer for this. Everything depends on you and your dev group.
The quantity of parameters may arrive also on numbers like 32, even if this leads to think about poor design, but this is kind of things that may happen to meet during career.
General agreement on this is
use as less as pssible
use overloaded functions, to slice parameters between different functions
func A(a,b)
{
A(a,b,c);
}
can use params keyword to pass arbitrary information in array, like object[]
can use Key-value stores where you can hold a lot of information and recover it
In general they say that the code-line has not to be long as much then constrain you to scroll horizontally in your editor, even if this is not strictly related to question subject, but may lead to some ideas on it.
Hope this helps.
You could take another approach by creating an object that is passed in as single parameter?
I have never head of a rule of thumb for parameters, but common sense and practicality usually prevails.
While I suspect the question will get closed as argumentative, 32 is definitely too many.
One option is to look at the builder patter, which will at least make the task more readable.
I think nowadays the most important thing would be readability for humans as opposed to performance. I doubt that a similar performance behaviour exists in .NET anyway, but even if it did, code that is correct is infinitely more useful than code that performs slightly quicker but that does the wrong thing. By keeping it easy to understand, you increase the chances of the code being correct.
A handful of parameters - rarely beyond 5 in my experience - is best most of the time. You could consider refactoring code that requires more than this by providing the parameters in the form of properties on a class which the method is subsequently called on.
I think it is pleasant to have zero up to five parameters per method.
But this depends on varying things, like coding style and class design.
Look at the .NET Framework, you will see often this:
A class with methods that almost have less or no parameters, but uses few properties to control the behavior of the class (instead of 30 parameters).
A class with huge set of methods with less or no paramters and with almost no properties. e.g. BinaryReader.
Keep your public API so simple as possible. Less parameters helps other developers to use your class without to learn to much about 'how it works'. Makes code more legible.
Valentin you have right feeling, 32 parameters mean only one - something going totally wrong.
From my past experience in C++, I saw only one "parameters" leader:
It was Win32 APi CreateWindow with 11 params.
You should never ever use such huge quantity of parameters.
From other hand, if you interested in question from theoretical point (probably it can be asked at interview) - How many parameters allowed for method?
So, here as was mention above C# method can have no more then 0x1FFFFFFF parameters (IL limitation).
You can use params[] array to set up such huge quantity.
And why exactly such limit?
Because, if you convert this value to bytes and multiple by reference size (4 bytes) you will receive exactly 2 GB.
There are 2 GB limitation on all objects in .NET and you are never allowed to create a single object that exceeds 2 GB.
As far as I know there isn't any hard and fast rule for how many parameters you should have. It depends entirely on what you are doing.
However for most applications, 32 parameters sounds like a bit too much. It might indicate a bad design. There might be a way to simplify things if you look closely.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Since forever, strongly-typed objects have been a foundation of object-oriented programming. Fast-forward to 5 minutes ago, when working with the Entity Framework and MVC3, I was forced to add this to my Web.config:
<connectionStrings>
<add name="_MY_EXACT_CLASS_NAME_DbContext" connectionString="Data Source=blahblah.../>
</connectionStrings>
Great, My entire application depends on an arbitrarily-chosen name in an XML attribute. Is this really what modern programming looks like? Misspelling a class name is a serious offense, one the compiler leads us directly into fixing, but in this case, I'll just get a runtime exception message. If Mr. aforementioned exception message in a good mood, he'll point me toward Mordor, and I'll trudge off toward another Mount Doom of wasted debugging hours to destroy the invisible One-Typo-To-Rule-Them-All.
The same goes for Controllers:
routes.MapRoute("BE_CAREFUL","{controller}/{action}/{id}",
new { controller = "ONE_FALSE_MOVE_AND",
action = "BUT_I_SWEAR_IT_SAID_BUILD_SUCCEEDED" }
);
It seems like things come and go in waves. Strongly-typed objects had their day in the sun, and now we're all girl-next-door over the anonymous "var". I'll admit, being coy about your type stirs up a lot of sexy scenarios - especially knowing you don't have to do any setup work - but here's The Actual Question:
How do the forefathers of object-oriented programming feel about our "advancement" of their art by adding a bunch of wishy-washy, do-sorta-whatever anonymous constructs while at the same time creating fragile dependencies on naming conventions?
For all we know, MVC4 might suddenly require that all names be preceded by exactly 4.7 spaces followed by lolcat ASCII art. Why? Because yes, that's why. Take a moment and marvel at the fact that you just witnessed the birth of a naming convention. Obviously, this is seriously solid foundational material for a flagship framework.
So, if there's one thing I want my entire codebase to both functionally and philosophically depend on, there's nothing more mission-critical to the mathematic logic of programming than..... Microsoft's® English-Language Naming Conventions!
</sarcasm>
</griping>
<!-- resume enjoying all of MVC's amazing features, after eating any humble pie served up in the comments -->
My entire application depends on an arbitrarily-chosen name in an XML attribute.
This is called "coding by convention" or "convention over configuration" ... you pick a few things that need configuration, and then everything else just "falls into place". Like using razor and having _layout.cshtml in /views/shared. Or like using razor and having mySpecialController with ActionResult Index and /views/mySpecial/Index.cshtml ... those are just a way of letting the convention work for you.
Since forever, strongly-typed objects have been a foundation of object-oriented programming.
Strongly-typed objects had their day in the sun, and now we're all girl-next-door over the anonymous "var".
var variables are just a shorthand to make things slightly more readable, the compiler still strongly and statically types things at compile time. Consider the difference here:
foreach (var c in Customers) { /* do stuff */ }
foreach (CustomerDataItem customerDataItem in Customers) { /* do stuff */ }
As you can see, the first one says "get a item c from Customers" and the second one says the same thing but good lord man I've already written two more lines of code while you're still typing the long one. Granted, with ReSharper that advantage disappears, however ...
For all we know, MVC4 might suddenly require that all names be preceded by exactly 4.7 spaces followed by lolcat ASCII art. Why? Because yes, that's why.
har.
How do the forefathers of object-oriented programming feel about our "advancement" of their art by adding a bunch of wishy-washy, do-sorta-whatever anonymous constructs while at the same time creating fragile dependencies on naming conventions?
Ok, so this was mostly just frustration, but I'll bite. The guys that started wanted simpler code (BASIC, COBOL look up what those mean) and so they want things to be easier and more math-y. That's where things are moving (LINQ is set math, and higher order calculus; also see F# and Python)
So they would LOVE what we're doing now. Getting away from procedural code (algebra) and moving into set-oriented logic (adv calculus). Also see Event Handlers ;-)
So .. having said all that: I've been in your shoes. I've asked those questions. I've studied at the feet of masters. I love where the languages are going.
In your next life, I want you to learn node.js. I want you to learn async evented processing, and I want you to understand how things don't rely on ANSI-C anymore. We've made a lot of progress in this industry, and things are looking up. Things are looking up every day. I love where we are, and I think it's the right thing for our industry.
Cheers, and HTH.
My answer: "because of the advancements in automated testing".
I know it sounds silly, but in regards to CA1709, should we ignore this error and just do what Microsoft did (which is use Db as the acronym for Database)?
Just wondering what people out there are doing. To me, it seems silly to use DB when Microsoft uses Db all over the place.
Quoting Brad Abrams in the excellent Framework Design Guidelines:
...I have heard every possible excuse for violating these naming
guidelines. [...] For the most part, our customers have seen the
places in which we have diverged from these guidelines (for even the
best excuse) as warts in the Framework.
In other words, do as they say, not as they do. :)
Also, 'Db' is an abbreviation, not an acronym. Database is one word. Abbreviations should never be used in identifiers per the Guidelines. ('Id' is a special case.)
Sadly the CA1709 link lists 'DB' as an example. :(
It doesn't really matter, does it? Choose what you like best - but then make sure you use it consistently. With coding and naming conventions it's mainly about choosing one you like and be consistent
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
We have a bit of a battle going on in our development team over this. I would love to hear what others think about this.
In the actual code? No, not unless you're going to have lots of people working on the code who are familiar with .NET but not with C#.
In member names? Absolutely. For instance, suppose Convert.ToSingle had been called Convert.ToFloat - that would be totally confusing for F# developers, for whom "float" means "64 bit floating point".
My general rule is C# aliases for implementation, CLR types for member names.
If you want to find some arguments in favour of using the CLR type names everywhere, Jeff Richter recommends that in "CLR via C#". (If you haven't already got it, buy a copy regardless of this matter - it's a wonderful book.) I didn't agree with the arguments he put forward, but there are some there, anyway.
I generally use the C# alias when declaring a variable, but the CLR types for the static members. I guess I just like the visual distinction it provides.
(Although it's not a particularily strong reason) I prefer type names over aliases because of IntelliSense standard coloring.
My previous development team adopted this practice because of the mix of C# and Visual Basic.NET developers. It was decided that the CLR types would make it easier for the C# and VB.NET people to communicate.
I think that almost the only time it makes sense to always use the CLR type names is in a mixed-language shop. One other possibility is if you are planning to switch from the current language to another one in the near future. In that case I would go with the CLR type names.
Other than that, there really isn't a strong motivating reason to choose one methodology over the other. It's far more important that you come to a consensus one way or another and make sure everyone is following the "standard".
I think it makes sense to consistently use the CLR type names when calling static type member methods, as you have to do that on enums anyway. So for declaration, use the C# type names, but when calling static members, use the CLR types. This makes it easier to read and more consistent imho. Since, you can't write:
MyEnum value = enum.Parse(typeof(MyEnum), "value");
which would fit better with:
int i = int.Parse("1");
long l = long.parse("1");
You'd rather write:
int i = Int32.Parse("1");
long l = Int64.Parse("1");
MyEnum value = Enum.Parse(typeof(MyEnum), "value");
Nope. I can't. It seems to me that the aliases are there to be used :)
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
As a beginning programmer, I'm trying to settle on a standard naming convention for myself. I realize that it's personal preference, but I was trying to get some ideas from some of you (well a LOT of you) who are much smarter than myself.
I'm not talking about camel notation but rather how do you name your variables, etc. IMHO, var_Quantity is much more descriptive than Q or varQ. However, how do you keep the variable from becoming too long. I've tried to be more descriptive with naming my controls, but I've ended up with some like "rtxtboxAddrLine1" for a RadTextBox that holds address line 1. Too me,that is unmanageable, although it's pretty clear what that control is.
I'm just curious if you have some guides that you follow or am I left up to my own devices?
Some basic rules can be found here. And much more extended rules can be found here. These are the official guidelines from the Microsoft framework designers.
As for your example, the variable should should be called simply quantity.
In this case, I think you'd be better off naming it as primaryAddressLine or firstAddressLine. Here's why - rtxt as a prefix uselessly tells you the type. Intellisense will help you with the type and is immune to changes made to the actual object type. Calling it firstAddressLine keeps it away from the (poor) convention of using 1, 2, 3...on the end of variable names to indicate that for some reason you needed more of them instead of a collection.
Name it for what it represents/how it's meant to be interpreted or used not for its data type, and in naming it don't abbreviate if you don't need to.
The Guidelines for Names is the best starting point. But as in other areas of life, once you know the rules, you begin to know where it's reasonable to break them.
I never use the old Hungarian notation that calls things strFirstName, intCount, and the like; but I still use it on controls: txtFirstName, btnVerifyData, etc. Reasons include:
I'm not that likely to change the type of a control
If I do change the type of a control, I'll have to change a lot of things, not just the name, so changing the name too is no big deal
They're far easier to find with Intellisense.
In addition, I'm quite likely to do the same thing to many of the TextBoxes or ComboBoxes on a page or form, whereas I'm not likely to do something to all the ints or strings referred to on a page or form. So it helps to be able to quickly find all the TextBoxes with their txt prefix.
There are others, though, that adamantly oppose Hungarian even in this case, and I'm sure they have their reasons. Regardless of your personal style, you may find yourself working on a team that has a very different style. In which case, just do what they do; it's very, very rarely worth making an issue of it. The only time I'd do so is if their style leads to a lot of bugs, but off the top of my head I can't think of a case that would cause that.
There are a few good coding standards documents available online - David Lance wrote one:
http://weblogs.asp.net/lhunt/attachment/591275.ashx
I'd recommend that you use Microsoft's own guidelines as a starting point. Typically, most companies start there (in my experience, anyway).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/czefa0ke(VS.71).aspx
The more descriptive the better, you will find that the length isn't as important as remembering what that control/variable did five years down the road.
For .NET API design (and some general C# guidelines) check Krzysztof Cwalina and Brad Abrams' Framework Design Guidelines
Regards,
tamberg
I generally try to follow the microsoft guidelines, with a few very old habits thrown in.
So, I still can't get out of the habit of prefixing privates with an underscore _privateMember.
I'm old, and that got burnt into my brain.
As far as prefixing control widgets, I have found that if you get too descriptive, it can become painful, in the case of changing the UI down the track.
e.g. you have something called ddlProductLine for a dropdown list, and then that has to change to a radio button group, your prefixing convention starts to be more PITA than helpful.
When you have a lot of widgets to work with, sometimes a more generic prefix like uiCtl can help with the clutter, but still make sense if you have to change widget type.