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 9 years ago.
Since C# is strongly typed, do we really need to prefix variables anymore?
e.g.
iUserAge
iCounter
strUsername
I used to prefix in the past, but going forward I don't see any benefit.
Are variable prefixes ( Hungarian ) really necessary anymore?
NO!
In fact, Microsoft's own style guidelines (where the practice originated) now recommend against it. In particular, see the section on General Naming Conventions, which includes the following text (in bold type, no less):
Do not use Hungarian notation.
Of course, these guidelines are not binding or mandatory outside of Microsoft. However, this is the published recommendation of the platform vendor, and it goes beyond merely removing the positive recommendation from any prior guide, to instead a strongly-worded and emphasized negative recommendation today.
In other words, don't use them anymore.
The only places I see fit to bend the standards and prefix variables:
control names: txtWhatever - and I see I'm not the only one. The nice thing is that you can come up with stuff like lblName next to txtName, and you don't need to go into the NameLabel/NameTextBox direction.
class member variables: _whatever. I've tried both m_ and no prefix at all and ended up with simple underscore. m_ is more difficult to type and having no prefix becomes confusing sometimes (especially during maintenance, I know all of you know their code by heart while writing it)
I didn't find any consistent situation where prefixing a variable with its type would make the code more readable, though.
EDIT: I did read the Microsoft guidelines. However I consider that coding styles are allowed to evolve and/or be "bent", where appropriate. As I mentioned above, I found using underscore prefix useful by trial and error, and is certainly better than using this.whatever everywhere in the code.
Supporting the "evolving" theory - back in .NET 1.x when Microsoft released coding guidelines, they advised using Camel casing for everything, even constants. I see now they've changed and advise using Pascal case for constant or public readonly fields.
Furthermore, even .NET Framework class library is currently full of m_ and _ and s_ (try browsing the implementation with the Reflector). So after all, it's up to the developer, as long as consistency is preserved across your project.
If Hungarian means "prefix with a type abbreviation" such as uCount or pchzName, then I would say this practice is bad and thankfully seems to be fading from common use.
However, I do still think that prefixes are very useful for scope. At my studio we use this convention for prefixing variables :
i_ // input-only function parameter (most are these)
o_ // output-only function parameter (so a non-const & or * type)
io_ // bidirectional func param
_ // private member var (c#)
m_ // private member var (c++)
s_ // static member var (c++)
g_ // global (rare, typically a singleton accessor macro)
I've found this to be very useful. The func param prefixes in particular are useful. Way down inside a function you can always tell where that var came from at a glance. And typically we will copy the var to another when we want to modify it or change its meaning.
So in short: prefixes for types are unnecessary with modern tools. The IDE takes care of identifying and checking that stuff for you. But scope-based prefixes are very useful for readability and clarity.
There are also fun side benefits like with Intellisense. You can type i_ ctrl-space and get all the input params to the func to choose from. Or g_ ctrl-space to get all your singletons. It's a time-saver.
Nope. Did we ever need to?
Hungarian notation is ugly. The only exception is with interfaces, where most people think it's acceptable.
Linus sums it up well:
"Encoding the type of a function into the name (so-called Hungarian notation) is brain damaged - the compiler knows the types anyway and can check those, and it only confuses the programmer"
No. Hungarian Notation just adds unnecessary noise to code and is redundant with compiler type checking.
Yes, if Hungarian notation were used as it was originally meant, instead of as implemented by Microsoft. Much like the example above, which shows text boxes and corresponding labels as lblWhatever, txtWhatever. Use it to define the use of the variable, not the type. It can provide information to know that your number is moneyTotal, which tells me more than just the data type.
But, as commonly used? No.
Prefixes are a leftover from the VB (and older!) days when Hungarian Notation was king. That is no longer the case, though the C# community does mandate things like using a prefix of Capital I for interfaces (e.g. ILoadable).
The current Microsoft Guidelines are here.
Hungarian notation is no longer needed to identify data types like in your string example, but it still can be useful for identifying characteristics of variables in other ways. Here's a good article that talks about useful ways of using the Hungarian notation: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
Here's an excerpt
"In Simonyi’s version of Hungarian notation, every variable was prefixed with a lower case tag that indicated the kind of thing that the variable contained.
For example, if the variable name is rwCol, rw is the prefix.
I’m using the word kind on purpose, there, because Simonyi mistakenly used the word type in his paper, and generations of programmers misunderstood what he meant."
He also uses an example of identifying strings prefixed with an 's' or a 'u' to identify if they are secure to print out or not, so that a statement like print(uSomeString); can easily be identified as wrong.
Most of the arguments I see against Hungarian notation mention that modern editors and IDEs are perfectly capable of giving you all the information you need to know about every identifier. Fair enough.
But what about printed code? Don't you carry out code reviews or walkthroughs on paper? Don't you use printed code for training purposes? Don't you use code snippets for online help? Hungarian notation is extremely valuable in these occasions.
I keep using (some sort of) Hungarian notation in all my code. I find its absence ugly and lacking in information.
I personally don't anymore, however you will still people argue to prefix for scope.
I go with Microsoft and use their Capitalization Styles for all naming conventions. The entire "Design Guidelines for Class Library Developers" section, which that link is a part of, is pure gold, in my opinion.
Additionally, I love the "Framework Design Guidelines" book from Addison Wesley. It covers all of these guidelines with annotations from Microsoft team members on to why they recommend what they are proposing and how it is adopted within the organization.
Well, to counter, I'd say - it depends. I'm personally against them, but it comes down to your team. Each team should be responsible for developing their own set of guidelines. Hopefully that doesn't include so-called Hungarian Notation, but it really should be a team decision. You might find cases where you want to break with the style guidelines.
What makes me curious about this question is the fact that the languages (C then C++) where prefixing (i.e., Hungarian notation) was introduced were also strongly-typed. For all I know, it was done with Pascal's use at Microsoft as well. And it would seem that it was also used with Mesa, a strongly-typed language that the Hungarian may have had some familiarity with [;<).
That being the case, it is fair to get beneath the question and consider (1) what problem was prefixing used to help solve and (2) how has that problem gone away?
I know that's not exactly an answer, but it might be more useful than the blanket objections to use of prefixes as outmoded or wrong-headed.
Even though the compiler can quickly and easily check the type of a variable, humans are unable to do so while skimming a piece of source code.
Therefore some people (like me) prefer to make variable names a tad more verbose, making them quickly recognizable to be global or class variables, string or int, etc.
It might not help the compiler, but when reading a foreign piece of code, it surely saves you having to look up each variable manually...
Definitely not. As a general rule, I've come to believe that it's just noise. If you're an indepedent consultant or your company doesn't have a comprehensive style guide, IDesign has a great guide. Just look on the right hand side of the page and you can D/L the latest iteration of their C# Coding Standard document.
Steve
I only use it in my database (PostgreSQL)
t_ for table name
v_ for view name
i_ for index name
trig_ for trigger
sp_ for stored procedure name
p_ for parameter
v_ for variable
c_ for cursor
r_ for record
Hungarian notation was never meant to be used to show what data type the variable was. It was misunderstood to suggest that "str" or "i" be used to implicitly define the type. It was meant to only show the "kind" of variable, not the "type."
So to answer the question, it shouldn't be used now nor should it have ever been used in the past.
I know it has been linked, but scroll to the bottom of Joel's article for more info - http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html where he talks about where Hungarian
For a general overview of good conventions see here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229002.aspx
There is a book about that in which they explain the reasons behind each of that conventions. Pretty interesting read.
I always prefix instance member variables with m__ and static member variables with s_. I've come across variable articles from MS people who recommend/discourage the approach.
I'm also pretty sure I've come across the m_ prefix when looking through the standard .NET libraries using Reflector...
No, we don't need them. I used to follow this when back in the days, we were forced to follow that kind of a coding standard.
Also with Intellisense, Code Definition Window and Refactoring tools built into VS and other third party plugins like CodeRush express and Refactor Pro, it's easier to work with code without it.
Inside the code and when working with data types I see no reason for the use of Hungarian notation.
But when I'm working with a series of user interface control, be that they are textboxes, dropdown lists, grids or what not, I like to have my intellisense work for me. So to accomplish that, I usually make the id of the control with a prefix of "uxSomeControlName". This way, when I'm looking for that textbox to grab it's text value, all I have to do is type "ux" and all of the user interface ID's are displayed. No need to search for txt, ddl, grd, or anything else.
Now is this correct, if you read the above, no. But I don't want to sit hear and try to remember a dozen or more control names when I just have to know two letters.
Like I said, this is only when working on the front end.
I use it all the time but that could because I use VBA with Access and Excel.
For me CountAll is a name intCountAll is a name with this difference that it additionially describes the name (never intended for machines just for humans) like sintCountAll tells me its static pintCountAll private and gintCountAll global so for the purpose I use it; it is very usefull.
control names is a time safer like instead of ControlName I have lblControlName, txtControlName, cboControlName, lstControlName etc so when I use VBA I just type lst and I have all the names I need so I don't have to remember what is the exact name which saves me a lot of time but again this is mainly VBA in Access and Excel.
Regards
Emil
The only prefix I would consider for C# is a _ for member variables such as
public class Test
{
private int _id;
}
I would say that in most languages these days that have a limited set of types - in particular no concept of unsigned types - then a well-named variable shouldn't need the prefix.
In languages that have signed and unsigned types, or a slew of similar types (e.g. short, int, long or Int8, Int16, In32), then prefixes are useful, despite what anybody else has or will say (and they will, you know it).
The compiler will, at best, give a warning when you try and mix integral types of different signs in expressions, and this could easily be missed if, for example, you configure your IDE to only show errors (not warnings) in a build in the final summary (as you can do with Visual Studio). Mixing signs in arithmetic can seriously ruin your day, so save you or your successor a headache and give them a clue. Remember - you're not the only one who will ever look at the code.
A solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
While many programmers today are abandoning it, I would still use it in certain cases. Here are some of them;
If you are maintaining code that
already uses it, then I would keep
using it.
When your company style guidelines
still require or even suggest it.
When your documentation has a simple
alphanumerically sorted list of
variables, it helps group like types.
I sometimes use a kind of prefix where pName is a parameter passed into my function (notice I don't prefix the type), oName is local to my current method, mName is a member to the class I'm in and cName is a constant or static readonly member.
Personally I find it helps.
The short answer is NO. But...
I see the point of getting away from Hungarian notation, the standards in our shop forbid it, too, but I still find it useful in my one-off or little utility projects for one reason and one reason only: when I am coding to a large number of controls in a web or win form, using HN makes it easy to use Intellisense make sure I catch every single control while coding.
If I have a five checkboxes and their names all start with chk then typing chk gives me the list of every one of them and I can easily pick which one I'm working on that moment.
Also, sometimes I find myself wondering "what the heck was that checkbox named again?" And I have to break off and look in the .ASPX page again.
One way I have compromised is to begin with HN, and then once I have gotten the main code in a win or web form complete, my last step is to do global renames for the HN-named controls. This has actually worked well for me. YMMV, of course.
No, if your methods are so long that you cant read the definition at the same time as the use, or the name doesnt imply the type then you have more serious design issues than just naming.
However, i INSIST that you do prefix controls with their type, such as txtName.
Related
I am in a new team. I am shocked by their coding guidelines.
Example:
strName
iCount
structRectangle
listCustomers
retVal (for the return value... that is really biting me... how someone can do this)
They demand to write the datatype before the variable with the argument that this way the developer knows everytime what datatype the variable is without scrolling up to the declaration.
Well that is true, but my argument would be then a method should not be longer than 30 lines (else put code in another method) which fits into a common 24" screen...
But I am not totally convinced because there are things like Action<T>, Dynamic, Func<T> in .NET. which force me too to go the same way and do "actionCustomers" for a delegate holding a method gettings a list of customers.
What advice can you give me as an alternative to e.g. "actionCustomers" which should render the argument of the team useless?
I would suggest that you adopt the coding style of the team you are coding with. They have adopted their style to deal with their own systemic problems. Unless you are in a position to judge their code (which it seems you are not) or you can appeal to a higher authority on code style (seems unlikely from your post) then, if you want to keep your job and demonstrate that you're a team player, you need to conform to the rules you've been given.
Why is datatype in variables bad coding style?
It's not. A relatively ancient form of it called Systems Hungarian Notation that actually encoded the type has received a lot of criticism for a lot of reasons, including redundancy, inconsistency, and poor readability. But that's not what you're dealing with. I sometimes find it helpful to include datatypes in my object names when I haven't fully decided on which container I'm going to use (list, no, set, no, dict... and usually in that order.)
This coding style is very useful when you are not using an IDE.
I often open old code files with Notepad++ (just to read it and convert to newer code, no need to open huge project to read one single file) and without this coding style, every time I see a variable, I have to search for its name inside the document just to find out its type. And that hurt my time schedule A LOT.
Long story short: you may not like the old school methods but they existed because people needed them. You will never know if one day you wish for it.
Encoding the type of a function into the name (so-called Hungarian
notation) is brain damaged—the compiler knows the types anyway and can
check those, and it only confuses the programmer.
Linus Thorvalds, Linux Kernel Coding Styles
I really love that quote.
I'm looking for advice as to coding conventions. The primary languages I use, in order of frequency are C#, JavaScript, and ActionScript. They are all ECMA-based languages, so for the most part, the syntax is interchangeable. What I would like to do is standardize the way I write code.
I looked around for documents on coding standards and found some, by various authors including Microsoft, Adobe, Doug Crockford, and the authors of various books I own. Much of the individual standards are identical. For example, do not use capitalization to differentiate between object identifiers. Okay, sounds good.
However, they are different in some ways, most notably to me in the naming conventions. For example, using underscores in naming private properties, or camel casing vs Pascal casing for method names.
The C# advice tends to differ more between the others than ActionScript and JavaScript do with each other, which makes it more difficult for me since it is a greater number of languages vs a greater amount of code written. There is also the issue of automatic formatting in the IDE (e.g. the placement of opening braces in functions in JavaScript vs C#).
Any advice as to how you might have approached this problem? Any big pitfalls I'm not seeing? I realize I may be being pedantic, and that I'm lucky enough to work in an environment where I don't have to conform to someone else's standard. I hope to gain some increase in productivity and more readable code. Thanks.
Idioms that make sense in C# aren't necessarily going to make sense in Javascript (and vice-versa), despite the fact that both use pointy braces and semicolons.
We use different coding styles - for the most part, standard Microsoft style for C# and for the most part, standard jQuery style for Javascript. It can be a bit strange-looking (the disjoint of Pascal versus camel case means that you have some C# objects that have "improper" casing because they're pretty much just there as JSON containers), but I wouldn't try to shoehorn what are two discrete languages into a single grammar.
I would stick to the standards proposed by the communities or creators of the languages instead of trying to create one standard that crosses boundaries. Doing otherwise tends to torque off developers that are passionate about and active in the communities surrounding the language.
We tried to do that at one of my employers with Delphi and C#, and no one was happy.
I'm lucky enough to work in an environment where I don't have to conform to someone else's standard
Personally I don't follow the Microsoft standard for C#: instead, all my method names and property names use camelCase (though my types still use UpperCase). And, I decorate my member data (so that it can't be confused with local variables, properties, and/or parameters).
I don't see why it's necessary to follow Microsoft's naming conventions; IMO it's even occasionally a good thing not to: when I subclass a Microsoft type, the case (e.g. 'add') distinguishes my methods from Microsoft's methods (e.g. 'Add') in the underlying base class.
Also when I'm writing C++, I don't follow the same naming conventions as the standard library authors (who use lower_case for their types whereas I use UpperCase).
It is true however that other developers may/do not like it; for example, someone commented on some example C# code that I posted in some answer here on SO, to criticise it not for its content but for its naming convention.
This is a matter of preference really, because that's just what coding standards are: standards. There is no obvious right or wrong here, enforcing every language's community standards has a lot going for it until you are working in 5 different languages frequently which all have subtle differences. You will not be able to keep up and start following neither standard.
What I have done before is use the same standard for languages in the same ballpark (PHP, Java, Ruby), and then some specific ones if it was absolutely impractical to use that same set of standards, and the code looks different enough for your brain to also make the switch (for BASH scripts for instance).
But really it's what you (and the rest of your team) agrees upon. You don't gain productivity from a specific set of coding standards, you gain productivity by having the same standards as the people you work with. If you want to go full out hungarian camel case with an underscore on top: more power to you, just make sure the entire team does it ;)
Sometimes to make a variable/method/class name descriptive I need to make it longer. But I don't want to, I'd like to have short names that are easy to read. So I thought of a special addin to IDE like Visual Studio to be able to write short names for class, method, field but be able to attach long names. If you need to - you can make it all long or you can make single name long. If you want to reduce it - use reduction, like two views of the same code. I`d like to know what others thinking about it? Do you think it is usefull? Would anybody use the kind of addin?
Why not just use the standard XML commenting system built into Visual Studio.
If you type /// above the Class/Method/variable etc, it creates the comment stub.
These comments popup through Intelisense/Code Completion with extra info.
This way you keep your naming conventions short and descriptive whilst commenting your code.
You can run a process to then create documentation for your code using these comments.
See: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc302121.aspx
A variable name should be as long as required to make it identifiable, does it matter if it's a bit longer than you would prefer? As long as the code is readable and understandable, surely this makes no difference?
Use comments for names that would be far too long to use as a variable/class name. This would be a lot more appropriate.
If a method name is too long, then it shouldn't be a single method...
I wouldn't use an addin like that.
I never worry about long names. If a method name becomes too long, it may also indicate that the method does too much (unless it happens to include a really long word). On the other hand, I also try to avoid repeating myself. I would not have Account.AccountId for instance, but rather Account.Id. I also lean back on the namespace; if the namespace is clear about what domain I am in, I usually try to not repeat that in class- or member names.
Bottom line; I can't see myself using such an addin.
Other programmers without this addin would find themselves in trouble because if you give too short names they will not fully understand the code, if you give long names they will loose time reading and eventually get angry because long names are difficult to remember :P
One has to find the best name for everything one writes, imho there is no need for a switch to turn on and off verbosity for identifiers.
I would not use that addin.
Nor I. The fact is you are talking about VisualStudio. It takes the heavy-load of remembering most variables names (long and short) with IntelliSense. As Power said, as long as the code is readable and understandable, that's all that matters.
With ReSharper 4 and above, you can get automatic expansion of type and variable names that are camel or Pascal cased:
(source: jetbrains.com)
So you could call your variable myExtremelyLongAndDescriptiveVariableName but then just type mELADVN to use it.
I don't think I'd want it.
The overhead of switching between different views would be as much work as hitting F12 and reading the comment for the function, which will always be more descriptive than the long name.
I wont.
Long function names could be handy in somecases. If you have a special case or something.
Some examples:
what would you favor for multiplication, mul or multiply ? multiply is my choice
Choosing functionnames is a matter of making your code clear for using, if you have too small names and you have to read comment to know what the function does, then youre doing it wrong
IDEs, text editors and compilers support limited (if at all limited) form of described functionality - that is source code comments. I think comments do very well and don't see any necessity of described addin. If comments are too long they can be folded. If you need source code with no comments you can easily strip them off with regex of similar stuff.
Id like to have short names that are
easy to read.
That is often a contradiction in terms.
Take for example a name like oScBf, if you don't already know what it's for it's practically unreadable. Is it outputScreenBuffer, onlineSourceBitflag, openScannerBrowsefile, outdoorSpecialBikinifavorites...?
Longer identifier names are usually preferrable. Eventhough it's more to read, it's still easier to understand.
Reading code is in some ways similar to reading text. You expect it to follow a certain pattern to be easy to read, if you start to add a lot of abbrev. and non-std words in da text u hav 2 stop n think what it means, and u lose da flow. :)
It's a bad idea. Variable names don't usually need to be long to be adequately descriptive, you'll waste a lot of time writing two versions of every name, and many programmers will probably find it rather confusing to have multiple names for the same thing.
With XMLDoc and intellisense help, you can add any extra detail required to fully describe a code element - the name doesn't need to describe the minutiae, only give a clear and distinctve idea of what the code element's purpose is.
With name auto-completion readily available, there is no longer any reason to complain of long names requiring lots of typing.
Also, good coding style is all about making code easy to read, understand and maintain, not about packing more code into a smaller space.
OO design should help to break functionality down hierarchically into namespaces and classes, reducing the need for such long names at the class/method level)
Lastly, if you really must shorten names, most languages most languages provide easy ways to strip off namespaces and/or add competely new aliases for names (e.g. 'typedef' and 'using' in C++, 'using' in C#), so in a localised region you can easily refer to a long name via a shortened variant or alias if you wish.
I like the idea. It's really good and I congradulate you and hope you're successful in developing it. Although I would never use such an Add-On.
I am developing a framework, and some of the objects have reaaally long names. I don't really like this, but I don't like acronyms either. I am trying to come up with a shorter name for "EventModelSocket", basically a wrapper around the .Net socket class that implements various events, and methods to send files, objects, etc. Some of the objects have really long names due to this, such as "EventModelSocketObjectReceivedEventArgs" for example.
I've tried everything from a thesaurus, to a dictionary to sitting here for hours thinking.
When you come upon situations like this, what is the best way to name something?
Push some of it into the namespace.
For example:
EventModelSocketObjectReceivedEventArgs
becomes
EventModel.Sockets.ReceivedEventArgs
Well, are the long names hurting something?
(edit) two other thoughts:
use var in C# 3.0 - that'll save half the width
if you are using the type multiple times in a file, consider a type alias if it is annoying you:
using Fred = Namespace.VeryLongNameThatIsBeingAnnoying;
I would just suggest using the most concise naming that describes the object.
If EventModelSocketObjectReceivedEventArgs does that, move on.
My 2 cents.
Years ago when I was in a programming class, the prof quoted the statistic that a piece of code is typically read 600 times for each single time it got modified. Nowadays, I would assume that this is no longer true, particulary in TDD environments where there's lots of refactoring going on. Nevertheless, I think a given piece of code is still read many more times than it gets written. Therefore, I think the maxim that we should write for readability is still valid. The full form of a word in a name is more readable, since the brain doesn't have to do the conversion. Comprehension is faster and more accurate.
The tools we have today make this so easy with autocompletion and the like. Because of this, I use full words in variable names now, and I think it's a good way to go.
If you need to go through that much effort to find an alternative name, you already have the correct name. Object/method/property names should be self documenting. If they do not describe their exact purpose they are misnamed. There is nothing wrong with long names if they give the most clear understanding of the purpose of that object.
In this age of intellisense and large monitors there really is no excuse to not be as descriptive as possible in naming.
Don't remove the vowels or something crazy like that.
I'm with the "stick with the long name" people.
One thought is that if the names are that awkward, maybe some deeper rethinking of the system is needed.
I for one use the long name. With intellisense typing out the name isn't that important, unless you are using a 15 inch monitor.
If I had to reduce the name I might go with EvtMdlSck just make the work shorter but still understood. Even though that is not my preference.
Some criticisms on your naming...
Why DOES your component have the word "model" in its name - isnt that a bit redundant.
Since your component seems to be a messaging hub of some sort why not include
Message in its name. What about MessageSender.
To solve your problem I would create an interface and given it a generic name like
MessageSender and an implementation which is where you include the technology within the name like RandomFailingSocketMessageSender.
If one wishes to get a good example of this take a look at the Java or .Net libraries..
from Java.
interface - class/implementations...
Map - HashMap, LinkedHashMap.
List - LinkedList
Details regarding the technology or framework used eg words like "Socket" or perhaps to use a contrived example "MQSeries" shouldnt be part of the interface name at all.
MessageSender seems to IMHO sum up the purpose of your component. It seems strange that your thing which sends "files" and "events" doesnt include the those two descriptive words. The stuff your using in your naming is superfluous and IMHO doesnt match your description of the component.
In general I believe in classnames that accurately describe their function, and that's it's OK to have long names. If you think the names are really getting long, what I would suggest is finding a concept that is well-known to your programming team and abbreviating that. So if "Event Model Sockets" are a concept that everybody knows about, then abbreviate them to EMS. If you've got a package that is entirely about Event Model Sockets then abbreviate them to EMS in all the classes internal to that package. They key here is to make sure the name is in full for anyone who might not be familiar with the concept and abbreviated for anyone who is.
I've been arguing with my coworkers about Pascal casing (upper camel case) vs. lower CamelCasing. They are used to lower camel casing for everything from table names in SQL databases to property naming in C# code but I like Pascal casing better, lower camel casing for variables and Pascal casing for properties:
string firstName;
public string FirstName {
...
}
But they are used to this:
string _firstname;
public string firstName {
...
}
I try to keep up with their "standard" so the code looks the same but I just don't like it.
I've seen that at least the .NET framework uses this convention and that is how I try to keep my code, e.g.:
System.Console.WriteLine("string")
What do you use/prefer and why? I'm sorry if somebody else asked this question but I searched and did not find anything.
Update:
I've given a method example and not a property but it's the same. As I stated in the first paragraph my colleagues use the Pascal convention for everything (variables, methods, table names, etc.)
A link to the official design guidelines might help. Specifically, read the section on Capitalization styles.
In the grand scheme of things, Pascal vs Camel doesn't matter that much and you're not likely to convince anyone to go back over an existing code base just to change the case of names. What's really important is that you want to be consistent within a given code base.
I'm just happy as long as you're not using Hungarian.
I use what the Framework uses, as it's the de-facto best practice. However, so long as the code in your company is consistently using their style, then you're much better off getting used to it. If every developer has their own standard, then there's no standard at all.
You should have a look at Microsoft's new tool, StyleCop for checking C# source code.
Also keep an eye on FxCop for checking compiled .Net assemblies. FxCop focuses more on the details of what the code does, not the layout, but it does have some naming rules related to publicly visible names.
StyleCop defines a coding standard, which is now being promoted by Microsoft as an industry standard. It checks C# source code against the standard.
StyleCop adheres to your PascalCase style.
Getting people onto StyleCop (or any other standard for that matter) can be hard, it's quite a hurdle, and StyleCop is quite exhaustive. But code should be to a uniform standard - and a personal standard is better than none, company standard is better than a personal one, and an industry standard is best of all.
It's a lot easier to convince people when a a project starts - team is being formed and there is no existing code to convert. And you can put tools (FxCop, StyleCop) in place to break the build if the code does not meet standards.
You should use the standard for the language and framework - SQL code should use SQL standards, and C# code should use C# standards.
For public interfaces you should stick with the MS .NET framework design
guidelines: "Capitalization Conventions".
For non-exposed members then whatever you and your colleagues can agree on.
I (and my team) prefer to reserve initial capitals for class names.
Why? Java standards propagating, I think.
I just found Coding Standards for .Net.
From
.NET Framework Developer's Guide
Capitalization Conventions, Case-Sensitivity:
The capitalization guidelines exist
solely to make identifiers easier to
read and recognize. Casing cannot be
used as a means of avoiding name
collisions between library elements.
Do not assume that all programming
languages are case-sensitive. They are
not. Names cannot differ by case
alone.
Pascal casing should be used for Properties. As far as varible names go, some people use _ and some poeple use m_ and some people just use plain old camel casing. I think that as long as you ae consistant here, it shouldn't matter.
I guess you have to put up with what the coding standard says for your place of work, however much you personally dislike it. Maybe one day in the future you will be able to dictate your own coding standards.
Personally I like databases to use names of the form "fish_name", "tank_id", etc for tables and fields, whereas the code equivalent of the database model would be "fishName" and "tankID". I also dislike "_fooname" naming when "fooName" is available. But I must repeat that this is subjective, and different people will have different ideas about what is good and bad due to their prior experience and education.
Actually, there's no "standard" convention on this. There's a Microsoft edited guideline somewhere, and as with with any other naming convention guideline, surely there's another one refuting it, but here's what I've come to understand as "standard C# casing convention".
PerWordCaps in type names (classes, enums), constants and properties.
camelCase for really long local variables and protected/private variables
No ALL_CAPS ever (well, only in compiler defines, but not in your code)
It seems some of the system classes use underscored names (_name) for private variables, but I guess that comes from the original writer's background as most of them came straight from C++. Also, notice that VB.NET isn't case sensitive, so you wouldn't be able to access the protected variables if you extended the class.
Actually, FxCop will enforce a few of those rules, but (AFAIK) it ignores whatever spelling you use for local variables.
I like the coding conventions laid out in the Aardvark'd project spec
That example of .NET you posted was a function. The adopted "standard" for methods/functions is A capped camel-case (or Pascal, if you want to call it that).
I stick to camel case where I can. It lets you easily know the difference between a variable and a method.
Additionally, I'm a fan of sticking an underscore in front of local class variables. E.g.: _localVar.
Whichever you prefer is what matters, obviously adhering to the team's standard primarily.
In private you code however you want, it doesn't affect the finished product whether you named your variable someVariable or SomeVariable.
The day when i quit programming - its when Microsoft will make CamelCase in C# as standard. Because my grown logic has many reasons for PascalCase, unlike kid's logic, who cares only shorter names or easier to write.
And BTW: CamelCasing comes primarily from C++ STD library style, the native old language inherited from C. So Java inherited from C++. But C# - is entirely new language - clean and beauty, with new rules. Oldfags must programm on Java or C++, new generation people must programm on C# - and they should never interact.
Consider this example:
1) PascalCase: list.Capacity.ToString();
2) CamelCase: list.capacity.toString();
In (1) we have CAMEL CASE in long TERM!!! means listCapacityToString.
In (2) we have bullshit: listcapacitytoString.
Thats how i read. And why CamelCase is illogical for itselt. I could kill for PascalCase, never touch it, kids of any age.
Microsoft - forever or until they use PascalCase.