I read quite a lot about the visitor pattern and its supposed advantages. To me however it seems they are not that much advantages when applied in practice:
"Convenient" and "elegant" seems to mean lots and lots of boilerplate code
Therefore, the code is hard to follow. Also 'accept'/'visit' is not very descriptive
Even uglier boilerplate code if your programming language has no method overloading (i.e. Vala)
You cannot in general add new operations to an existing type hierarchy without modification of all classes, since you need new 'accept'/'visit' methods everywhere as soon as you need an operation with different parameters and/or return value (changes to classes all over the place is one thing this design pattern was supposed to avoid!?)
Adding a new type to the type hierarchy requires changes to all visitors. Also, your visitors cannot simply ignore a type - you need to create an empty visit method (boilerplate again)
It all just seems to be an awful lot of work when all you want to do is actually:
// Pseudocode
int SomeOperation(ISomeAbstractThing obj) {
switch (type of obj) {
case Foo: // do Foo-specific stuff here
case Bar: // do Bar-specific stuff here
case Baz: // do Baz-specific stuff here
default: return 0; // do some sensible default if type unknown or if we don't care
}
}
The only real advantage I see (which btw i haven't seen mentioned anywhere): The visitor pattern is probably the fastest method to implement the above code snippet in terms of cpu time (if you don't have a language with double dispatch or efficient type comparison in the fashion of the pseudocode above).
Questions:
So, what advantages of the visitor pattern have I missed?
What alternative concepts/data structures could be used to make the above fictional code sample run equally fast?
For as far as I have seen so far there are two uses / benefits for the visitor design pattern:
Double dispatch
Separate data structures from the operations on them
Double dispatch
Let's say you have a Vehicle class and a VehicleWasher class. The VehicleWasher has a Wash(Vehicle) method:
VehicleWasher
Wash(Vehicle)
Vehicle
Additionally we also have specific vehicles like a car and in the future we'll also have other specific vehicles. For this we have a Car class but also a specific CarWasher class that has an operation specific to washing cars (pseudo code):
CarWasher : VehicleWasher
Wash(Car)
Car : Vehicle
Then consider the following client code to wash a specific vehicle (notice that x and washer are declared using their base type because the instances might be dynamically created based on user input or external configuration values; in this example they are simply created with a new operator though):
Vehicle x = new Car();
VehicleWasher washer = new CarWasher();
washer.Wash(x);
Many languages use single dispatch to call the appropriate function. Single dispatch means that during runtime only a single value is taken into account when determining which method to call. Therefore only the actual type of washer we'll be considered. The actual type of x isn't taken into account. The last line of code will therefore invoke CarWasher.Wash(Vehicle) and NOT CarWasher.Wash(Car).
If you use a language that does not support multiple dispatch and you do need it (I can honoustly say I have never encountered such a situation though) then you can use the visitor design pattern to enable this. For this two things need to be done. First of all add an Accept method to the Vehicle class (the visitee) that accepts a VehicleWasher as a visitor and then call its operation Wash:
Accept(VehicleWasher washer)
washer.Wash(this);
The second thing is to modify the calling code and replace the washer.Wash(x); line with the following:
x.Accept(washer);
Now for the call to the Accept method the actual type of x is considered (and only that of x since we are assuming to be using a single dispatch language). In the implementation of the Accept method the Wash method is called on the washer object (the visitor). For this the actual type of the washer is considered and this will invoke CarWasher.Wash(Car). By combining two single dispatches a double dispatch is implemented.
Now to eleborate on your remark of the terms like Accept and Visit and Visitor being very unspecific. That is absolutely true. But it is for a reason.
Consider the requirement in this example to implement a new class that is able to repair vehicles: a VehicleRepairer. This class can only be used as a visitor in this example if it would inherit from VehicleWasher and have its repair logic inside a Wash method. But that ofcourse doesn't make any sense and would be confusing. So I totally agree that design patterns tend to have very vague and unspecific naming but it does make them applicable to many situations. The more specific your naming is, the more restrictive it can be.
Your switch statement only considers one type which is actually a manual way of single dispatch. Applying the visitor design pattern in the above way will provide double dispatch.
This way you do not necessarily need additional Visit methods when adding additional types to your hierarchy. Ofcourse it does add some complexity as it makes the code less readable. But ofcourse all patterns come at a price.
Ofcourse this pattern cannot always be used. If you expect lots of complex operations with multiple parameters then this will not be a good option.
An alternative is to use a language that does support multiple dispatch. For instance .NET did not support it until version 4.0 which introduced the dynamic keyword. Then in C# you can do the following:
washer.Wash((dynamic)x);
Because x is then converted to a dynamic type its actual type will be considered for the dispatch and so both x and washer will be used to select the correct method so that CarWasher.Wash(Car) will be called (making the code work correctly and staying intuitive).
Separate data structures and operations
The other benefit and requirement is that it can separate the data structures from the operations. This can be an advantage because it allows new visitors to be added that have there own operations while it also allows data structures to be added that 'inherit' these operations. It can however be only applied if this seperation can be done / makes sense. The classes that perform the operations (the visitors) do not know the structure of the data structures nor do they have to know that which makes code more maintainable and reusable. When applied for this reason the visitors have operations for the different elements in the data structures.
Say you have different data structures and they all consist of elements of class Item. The structures can be lists, stacks, trees, queues etc.
You can then implement visitors that in this case will have the following method:
Visit(Item)
The data structures need to accept visitors and then call the Visit method for each Item.
This way you can implement all kinds of visitors and you can still add new data structures as long as they consist of elements of type Item.
For more specific data structures with additional elements (e.g. a Node) you might consider a specific visitor (NodeVisitor) that inherits from your conventional Visitor and have your new data structures accept that visitor (Accept(NodeVisitor)). The new visitors can be used for the new data structures but also for the old data structures due to inheritence and so you do not need to modify your existing 'interface' (the super class in this case).
In my personal opinion, the visitor pattern is only useful if the interface you want implemented is rather static and doesn't change a lot, while you want to give anyone a chance to implement their own functionality.
Note that you can avoid changing everything every time you add a new method by creating a new interface instead of modifying the old one - then you just have to have some logic handling the case when the visitor doesn't implement all the interfaces.
Basically, the benefit is that it allows you to choose the correct method to call at runtime, rather than at compile time - and the available methods are actually extensible.
For more info, have a look at this article - http://rgomes-info.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/a-better-implementation-of-visitor.html
By experience, I would say that "Adding a new type to the type hierarchy requires changes to all visitors" is an advantage. Because it definitely forces you to consider the new type added in ALL places where you did some type-specific stuff. It prevents you from forgetting one....
This is an old question but i would like to answer.
The visitor pattern is useful mostly when you have a composite pattern in place in which you build a tree of objects and such tree arrangement is unpredictable.
Type checking may be one thing that a visitor can do, but say you want to build an expression based on a tree that can vary its form according to a user input or something like that, a visitor would be an effective way for you to validate the tree, or build a complex object according to the items found on the tree.
The visitor may also carry an object that does something on each node it may find on that tree. this visitor may be a composite itself chaining lots of operations on each node, or it can carry a mediator object to mediate operations or dispatch events on each node.
You imagination is the limit of all this. you can filter a collection, build an abstract syntax tree out of an complete tree, parse a string, validate a collection of things, etc.
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a corporate application written in python/Django (no python experience required to answer this). Its SAAS basically.
Few of the clients seems to have different requirement for a few modules.
Lets say there is a URL
www.xyz.com/groups
which is used by all clients but a few of the clients want to have different output on call of the same URL.
I want to know how can i do that without writing new function for each client or writing conditions in a single function.
Its a silly question i know but there must be some solution to it, i know.
If your code is required to do "A" for case "a" and "B" for case "b" and "C" for case "c", then regardless of what solution you pick, somewhere in the code has to exists something that decides whever or not case 'a/b/c' occurs, and something must exist that will dispatch correct 'A/B/C' action for that case, and of course those A/B/C actions have to be written somewhere in the code, too.
Step outside of the code and think about it. If it is specified and must happen - it has to be coded somewhere. You cannot escape that. Now, if the cases/actions are trivial and typical, you might find some more-or-even-more configurable library that accidentally allows you to configure such cases and actions, and off you go, you have it "with no code" and no "clutter". But looking formally, the code is deep there in the library. So, the decider, dispatcher and actions are coded. Just not by you - by someone that guessed your needs.
But if your needs are nontrivial and highly specific, for example, if it require your various conditions to decide which a/b/c case is it - then most probably you will have to code the 'decider' part for yourself. That means lots of tree-of-IFs, nested-switches, rules-n-loops, or whatever you like or feel adequate. After this, you are left with dispatch/execute phase, and this can be realized in a multitude of ways - i.e. strategy pattern - it is exactly it: dispatch (by concrete class related to case) and execute (the concrete strategy has the concrete code for the case).
Let's try something-like-OO approach:
For example, if you have cases a/b/c for UserTypes U1,U2,U3, you could introduce three classes:
UserType1 inherits from abstract UserType or implements "DoAThing" interface
UserType2 inherits from abstract UserType or implements "DoAThing" interface
UserType3 inherits from abstract UserType or implements "DoAThing" interface
UserType1 implements virtual method 'doTheThing' that executes actionA
UserType2 implements virtual method 'doTheThing' that executes actionB
UserType3 implements virtual method 'doTheThing' that executes actionC
your Users stop keeping "UserType" of type "int" equal to '1/2/3' - now their type is an object: UserType1, UserType2 or UserType3
whenever you must do the thing for a given user, you now just:
result = user.getType().doTheThing( ..params..)
So, instead of iffing/switching, you use OO: tell, don't ask rule. If the action-to-do is dependent solely on UserType, then let the UserType perform it. The resulting code is as short as possible - but at the cost of number of classes to create and, well, ...
... the decider, dispatcher and actions are still in the code. Actions - obvious - in the various usertype clasess. Dispatch - obvious - virtual call by common abstract base method. And decider..? Well: someone at some point had to choose and construct the correct UserType object for the user. If user was stored in the database, if "usertype" is just an integer 1/2/3, then somewhere in your ORM layer those 1/2/3 numbers had to be decoded and translated into UserType1/2/3 classes/objects. That means, that you'd need there a tree-of-ifs or a switch or etc. Or, if you have an ORM smart enough - you just set up a bunch of rules and it did it for you, but that's just again delegating part of the job to more-or-even-more configurable library. Not mentioning that your UserType1/2/3 classes in fact became somewhat .. strategies.
Ok, let's attack the 'choose' part.
You can build a tree of ifs or switches somewhere to decide and assign, but imperative seems to smell. Or, with OO, you can try to polymorphize something so that "it will just do the right thing", but it will not solve anything since again you will have to choose the object type somewhere. So, let's try data-driven: let's use lookups.
we've got five implementations of an action
create a hash/dictionary/map
add usertype1->caseA to the map
add usertype2->caseC to the map
add usertype3->caseB to the map
add usertype4->caseA to the map
add usertype5->caseE to the map
....
now, whenever you have a user and need to decide, just look it up. Instead of a "case" you may hold a ready to use object of a strategy. Or a callable method. Or a typename. Or whatever you need. The point is that instead of writing
if( user.type == 1) { ... }
else if( user.type == 2) ...
or switching, you just look it up:
thing = map[ user.type ]
if ( thing is null ) ???
but, mind that without some care, you might sometimes NOT find a match in the map. And also, the map must be PREDEFINED for ALL CASES. So, simple if X < 100 may turn up into a hundred of entries 0..99 inside the map.
Of course, instead of a map, you may use some rule-engine and you could define a mapping like
X<100 -> caseA
X>=100 -> caseB
and then 'run' the rules against your usertype and obtain a 'result' that will tell you "caseA".
And so on.
Each of the parts - decide, dispatch, execute - you may implement in various ways, shorter or longer, more or less extensible, more or less configurable, as OO/imperative/datadriven/functional/etc - but you cannot escape them:
you have to define the discriminant of the cases
you have to define the implementation of the actions
you have to define the mapping case-to-action
How to do them, is a matter of your aesthetics, language features, frameworks, libraries and .. time you want to spend on creating and mantaining it.
I'm writing a program to do a search and export the output.
I have three primary objects:
Request
SearchResults
ExportOutput
Each of these objects links to its precursor.
Ie: ExportOutput -> SearchResults -> Request
Is this ok? Should they somehow be more loosely coupled?
Clarification:
Processes later on do use properties and methods on the precursor objects.
Ie:
SendEmail(output.SearchResults.Request.UserEmail, BODY, SUBJECT);
This has a smell even to me. The only way I can think to fix it is have hiding properties in each one, that way I'm only accessing one level
MailAddress UserEmail
{
get { return SearchResults.UserEmail; }
}
which would yeild
SendEmail(output.UserEmail, BODY, SUBJECT);
But again, that's just hiding the problem.
I could copy everything out of the precursor objects into their successors, but that would make ExportOutput really ugly. Is their a better way to factor these objects.
Note: SearchResults implements IDisposable because it links to unmanaged resources (temp files), so I really don't want to just duplicate that in ExportOutput.
If A uses B directly, you cannot:
Reuse A without also reusing B
Test A in isolation from B
Change B without risking breaking A
If instead you designed/programmed to interfaces, you could:
Reuse A without also reusing B - you just need to provide something that implements the same interface as B
Test A in isolation from B - you just need to substitute a Mock Object.
Change B without risking breaking A - because A depends on an interface - not on B
So, at a minimum, I recommend extracting interfaces. Also, this might be a good read for you: the Dependency Inversion Principle (PDF file).
Without knowing your specifics, I would think that results in whatever form would simply be returned from a Request's method (might be more than one such method from a configured Request, like find_first_instance vs. find_all_instances). Then, an Exporter's output method(s) would take results as input. So, I am not envisioning the need to link the objects at all.
What rules do you use to name your variables?
Where are single letter vars allowed?
How much info do you put in the name?
How about for example code?
What are your preferred meaningless variable names? (after foo & bar)
Why are they spelled "foo" and "bar" rather than FUBAR
function startEditing(){
if (user.canEdit(currentDocument)){
editorControl.setEditMode(true);
setButtonDown(btnStartEditing);
}
}
Should read like a narrative work.
One rule I always follow is this: if a variable encodes a value that is in some particular units, then those units have to be part of the variable name. Example:
int postalCodeDistanceMiles;
decimal reactorCoreTemperatureKelvin;
decimal altitudeMsl;
int userExperienceWongBakerPainScale
I will NOT be responsible for crashing any Mars landers (or the equivalent failure in my boring CRUD business applications).
Well it all depends on the language you are developing in. As I am currently using C# I tend you use the following.
camelCase for variables.
camelCase for parameters.
PascalCase for properties.
m_PascalCase for member variables.
Where are single letter vars allows?
I tend to do this in for loops but feel a bit guilty whenever I do so. But with foreach and lambda expressions for loops are not really that common now.
How much info do you put in the name?
If the code is a bit difficult to understand write a comment. Don't turn a variable name into a comment, i.e .
int theTotalAccountValueIsStoredHere
is not required.
what are your preferred meaningless variable names? (after foo & bar)
i or x. foo and bar are a bit too university text book example for me.
why are they spelled "foo" and "bar" rather than FUBAR?
Tradition
These are all C# conventions.
Variable-name casing
Case indicates scope. Pascal-cased variables are fields of the owning class. Camel-cased variables are local to the current method.
I have only one prefix-character convention. Backing fields for class properties are Pascal-cased and prefixed with an underscore:
private int _Foo;
public int Foo { get { return _Foo; } set { _Foo = value; } }
There's some C# variable-naming convention I've seen out there - I'm pretty sure it was a Microsoft document - that inveighs against using an underscore prefix. That seems crazy to me. If I look in my code and see something like
_Foo = GetResult();
the very first thing that I ask myself is, "Did I have a good reason not to use a property accessor to update that field?" The answer is often "Yes, and you'd better know what that is before you start monkeying around with this code."
Single-letter (and short) variable names
While I tend to agree with the dictum that variable names should be meaningful, in practice there are lots of circumstances under which making their names meaningful adds nothing to the code's readability or maintainability.
Loop iterators and array indices are the obvious places to use short and arbitrary variable names. Less obvious, but no less appropriate in my book, are nonce usages, e.g.:
XmlWriterSettings xws = new XmlWriterSettings();
xws.Indent = true;
XmlWriter xw = XmlWriter.Create(outputStream, xws);
That's from C# 2.0 code; if I wrote it today, of course, I wouldn't need the nonce variable:
XmlWriter xw = XmlWriter.Create(
outputStream,
new XmlWriterSettings() { Indent=true; });
But there are still plenty of places in C# code where I have to create an object that you're just going to pass elsewhere and then throw away.
A lot of developers would use a name like xwsTemp in those circumstances. I find that the Temp suffix is redundant. The fact that I named the variable xws in its declaration (and I'm only using it within visual range of that declaration; that's important) tells me that it's a temporary variable.
Another place I'll use short variable names is in a method that's making heavy use of a single object. Here's a piece of production code:
internal void WriteXml(XmlWriter xw)
{
if (!Active)
{
return;
}
xw.WriteStartElement(Row.Table.TableName);
xw.WriteAttributeString("ID", Row["ID"].ToString());
xw.WriteAttributeString("RowState", Row.RowState.ToString());
for (int i = 0; i < ColumnManagers.Length; i++)
{
ColumnManagers[i].Value = Row.ItemArray[i];
xw.WriteElementString(ColumnManagers[i].ColumnName, ColumnManagers[i].ToXmlString());
}
...
There's no way in the world that code would be easier to read (or safer to modify) if I gave the XmlWriter a longer name.
Oh, how do I know that xw isn't a temporary variable? Because I can't see its declaration. I only use temporary variables within 4 or 5 lines of their declaration. If I'm going to need one for more code than that, I either give it a meaningful name or refactor the code using it into a method that - hey, what a coincidence - takes the short variable as an argument.
How much info do you put in the name?
Enough.
That turns out to be something of a black art. There's plenty of information I don't have to put into the name. I know when a variable's the backing field of a property accessor, or temporary, or an argument to the current method, because my naming conventions tell me that. So my names don't.
Here's why it's not that important.
In practice, I don't need to spend much energy figuring out variable names. I put all of that cognitive effort into naming types, properties and methods. This is a much bigger deal than naming variables, because these names are very often public in scope (or at least visible throughout the namespace). Names within a namespace need to convey meaning the same way.
There's only one variable in this block of code:
RowManager r = (RowManager)sender;
// if the settings allow adding a new row, add one if the context row
// is the last sibling, and it is now active.
if (Settings.AllowAdds && r.IsLastSibling && r.Active)
{
r.ParentRowManager.AddNewChildRow(r.RecordTypeRow, false);
}
The property names almost make the comment redundant. (Almost. There's actually a reason why the property is called AllowAdds and not AllowAddingNewRows that a lot of thought went into, but it doesn't apply to this particular piece of code, which is why there's a comment.) The variable name? Who cares?
Pretty much every modern language that had wide use has its own coding standards. These are a great starting point. If all else fails, just use whatever is recommended. There are exceptions of course, but these are general guidelines. If your team prefers certain variations, as long as you agree with them, then that's fine as well.
But at the end of the day it's not necessarily what standards you use, but the fact that you have them in the first place and that they are adhered to.
I only use single character variables for loop control or very short functions.
for(int i = 0; i< endPoint; i++) {...}
int max( int a, int b) {
if (a > b)
return a;
return b;
}
The amount of information depends on the scope of the variable, the more places it could be used, the more information I want to have the name to keep track of its purpose.
When I write example code, I try to use variable names as I would in real code (although functions might get useless names like foo or bar).
See Etymology of "Foo"
What rules do you use to name your variables?
Typically, as I am a C# developer, I follow the variable naming conventions as specified by the IDesign C# Coding Standard for two reasons
1) I like it, and find it easy to read.
2) It is the default that comes with the Code Style Enforcer AddIn for Visual Studio 2005 / 2008 which I use extensively these days.
Where are single letter vars allows?
There are a few places where I will allow single letter variables. Usually these are simple loop indexers, OR mathematical concepts like X,Y,Z coordinates. Other than that, never! (Everywhere else I have used them, I have typically been bitten by them when rereading the code).
How much info do you put in the name?
Enough to know PRECISELY what the variable is being used for. As Robert Martin says:
The name of a variable, function, or
class, should answer all the big
questions. It should tell you why it
exists, what it does, and how it is
used. If a name requires a comment,
then the name does not reveal its
intent.
From Clean Code - A Handbook of Agile Software Craftsmanship
I never use meaningless variable names like foo or bar, unless, of course, the code is truly throw-away.
For loop variables, I double up the letter so that it's easier to search for the variable within the file. For example,
for (int ii=0; ii < array.length; ii++)
{
int element = array[ii];
printf("%d", element);
}
What rules do you use to name your variables? I've switched between underscore between words (load_vars), camel casing (loadVars) and no spaces (loadvars). Classes are always CamelCase, capitalized.
Where are single letter vars allows? Loops, mostly. Temporary vars in throwaway code.
How much info do you put in the name? Enough to remind me what it is while I'm coding. (Yes this can lead to problems later!)
what are your preferred meaningless variable names? (after foo & bar) temp, res, r. I actually don't use foo and bar a good amount.
What rules do you use to name your variables?
I need to be able to understand it in a year's time. Should also conform with preexisting style.
Where are single letter vars allows?
ultra-obvious things. E.g. char c; c = getc(); Loop indicies(i,j,k).
How much info do you put in the name?
Plenty and lots.
how about for example code?
Same as above.
what are your preferred meaningless variable names? (after foo & bar)
I don't like having meaningless variable names. If a variable doesn't mean anything, why is it in my code?
why are they spelled "foo" and "bar" rather than FUBAR
Tradition.
The rules I adhere to are;
Does the name fully and accurately describe what the variable represents?
Does the name refer to the real-world problem rather than the programming language solution?
Is the name long enough that you don't have to puzzle it out?
Are computed value qualifiers, if any, at the end of the name?
Are they specifically instantiated only at the point once required?
What rules do you use to name your variables?
camelCase for all important variables, CamelCase for all classes
Where are single letter vars allows?
In loop constructs and in mathematical funktions where the single letter var name is consistent with the mathematical definition.
How much info do you put in the name?
You should be able to read the code like a book. Function names should tell you what the function does (scalarProd(), addCustomer(), etc)
How about for example code?
what are your preferred meaningless variable names? (after foo & bar)
temp, tmp, input, I never really use foo and bar.
I would say try to name them as clearly as possible. Never use single letter variables and only use 'foo' and 'bar' if you're just testing something out (e.g., in interactive mode) and won't use it in production.
I like to prefix my variables with what they're going to be: str = String, int = Integer, bool = Boolean, etc.
Using a single letter is quick and easy in Loops: For i = 0 to 4...Loop
Variables are made to be a short but descriptive substitute for what you're using. If the variable is too short, you might not understand what it's for. If it's too long, you'll be typing forever for a variable that represents 5.
Foo & Bar are used for example code to show how the code works. You can use just about any different nonsensical characters to use instead. I usually just use i, x, & y.
My personal opinion of foo bar vs. fu bar is that it's too obvious and no one likes 2-character variables, 3 is much better!
In DSLs and other fluent interfaces often variable- and method-name taken together form a lexical entity. For example, I personally like the (admittedly heretic) naming pattern where the verb is put into the variable name rather than the method name. #see 6th Rule of Variable Naming
Also, I like the spartan use of $ as variable name for the main variable of a piece of code. For example, a class that pretty prints a tree structure can use $ for the StringBuffer inst var. #see This is Verbose!
Otherwise I refer to the Programmer's Phrasebook by Einar Hoest. #see http://www.nr.no/~einarwh/phrasebook/
I always use single letter variables in for loops, it's just nicer-looking and easier to read.
A lot of it depends on the language you're programming in too, I don't name variables the same in C++ as I do in Java (Java lends itself better to the excessively long variable names imo, but this could just a personal preference. Or it may have something to do with how Java built-ins are named...).
locals: fooBar;
members/types/functions FooBar
interfaces: IFooBar
As for me, single letters are only valid if the name is classic; i/j/k for only for local loop indexes, x,y,z for vector parts.
vars have names that convey meaning but are short enough to not wrap lines
foo,bar,baz. Pickle is also a favorite.
I learned not to ever use single-letter variable names back in my VB3 days. The problem is that if you want to search everywhere that a variable is used, it's kinda hard to search on a single letter!
The newer versions of Visual Studio have intelligent variable searching functions that avoid this problem, but old habits and all that. Anyway, I prefer to err on the side of ridiculous.
for (int firstStageRocketEngineIndex = 0; firstStageRocketEngineIndex < firstStageRocketEngines.Length; firstStageRocketEngineIndex++)
{
firstStageRocketEngines[firstStageRocketEngineIndex].Ignite();
Thread.Sleep(100); // Don't start them all at once. That would be bad.
}
It's pretty much unimportant how you name variables. You really don't need any rules, other than those specified by the language, or at minimum, those enforced by your compiler.
It's considered polite to pick names you think your teammates can figure out, but style rules don't really help with that as much as people think.
Since I work as a contractor, moving among different companies and projects, I prefer to avoid custom naming conventions. They make it more difficult for a new developer, or a maintenance developer, to become acquainted with (and follow) the standard being used.
So, while one can find points in them to disagree with, I look to the official Microsoft Net guidelines for a consistent set of naming conventions.
With some exceptions (Hungarian notation), I think consistent usage may be more useful than any arbitrary set of rules. That is, do it the same way every time.
.
I work in MathCAD and I'm happy because MathCAD gives me increadable possibilities in naming and I use them a lot. And I can`t understand how to programm without this.
To differ one var from another I have to include a lot of information in the name,for example:
1.On the first place - that is it -N for quantity,F for force and so on
2.On the second - additional indices - for direction of force for example
3.On the third - indexation inside vector or matrix var,for convinience I put var name in {} or [] brackets to show its dimensions.
So,as conclusion my var name is like
N.dirs / Fx i.row / {F}.w.(i,j.k) / {F}.w.(k,i.j).
Sometimes I have to add name of coordinate system for vector values
{F}.{GCS}.w.(i,j.k) / {F}.{LCS}.w.(i,j.k)
And as final step I add name of the external module in BOLD at the end of external function or var like Row.MTX.f([M]) because MathCAD doesn't have help string for function.
Use variables that describes clearly what it contains. If the class is going to get big, or if it is in the public scope the variable name needs to be described more accurately. Of course good naming makes you and other people understand the code better.
for example: use "employeeNumber" insetead of just "number".
use Btn or Button in the end of the name of variables reffering to buttons, str for strings and so on.
Start variables with lower case, start classes with uppercase.
example of class "MyBigClass", example of variable "myStringVariable"
Use upper case to indicate a new word for better readability. Don't use "_", because it looks uglier and takes longer time to write.
for example: use "employeeName".
Only use single character variables in loops.
Updated
First off, naming depends on existing conventions, whether from language, framework, library, or project. (When in Rome...) Example: Use the jQuery style for jQuery plugins, use the Apple style for iOS apps. The former example requires more vigilance (since JavaScript can get messy and isn't automatically checked), while the latter example is simpler since the standard has been well-enforced and followed. YMMV depending on the leaders, the community, and especially the tools.
I will set aside all my naming habits to follow any existing conventions.
In general, I follow these principles, all of which center around programming being another form of interpersonal communication through written language.
Readability - important parts should have solid names; but these names should not be a replacement for proper documentation of intent. The test for code readability is if you can come back to it months later and still be understanding enough to not toss the entire thing upon first impression. This means avoiding abbreviation; see the case against Hungarian notation.
Writeability - common areas and boilerplate should be kept simple (esp. if there's no IDE), so code is easier and more fun to write. This is a bit inspired by Rob Pyke's style.
Maintainability - if I add the type to my name like arrItems, then it would suck if I changed that property to be an instance of a CustomSet class that extends Array. Type notes should be kept in documentation, and only if appropriate (for APIs and such).
Standard, common naming - For dumb environments (text editors): Classes should be in ProperCase, variables should be short and if needed be in snake_case and functions should be in camelCase.
For JavaScript, it's a classic case of the restraints of the language and the tools affecting naming. It helps to distinguish variables from functions through different naming, since there's no IDE to hold your hand while this and prototype and other boilerplate obscure your vision and confuse your differentiation skills. It's also not uncommon to see all the unimportant or globally-derived vars in a scope be abbreviated. The language has no import [path] as [alias];, so local vars become aliases. And then there's the slew of different whitespacing conventions. The only solution here (and anywhere, really) is proper documentation of intent (and identity).
Also, the language itself is based around function level scope and closures, so that amount of flexibility can make blocks with variables in 2+ scope levels feel very messy, so I've seen naming where _ is prepended for each level in the scope chain to the vars in that scope.
I do a lot of php in nowadays, It was not always like that though and I have learned a couple of tricks when it comes to variable naming.
//this is my string variable
$strVar = "";
//this would represent an array
$arrCards = array();
//this is for an integer
$intTotal = NULL:
//object
$objDB = new database_class();
//boolean
$blValid = true;