From: Zach <zacharooni@...>
Date: 2006-01-21T04:17:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Hungarian Case variable names.

Actually I hadn't read this article, but I've heard of Joel. Thanks to 
the both of you for pointing it out.

-Zach

"I assume you know this, but just to be sure, Joel on Software has a  
semi-famous article about the virtues of Hungarian Notation:

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html

If you make it all the way to the end of that, it talks about how the  
notation is intended to show a "kind", not "type".  When used that  way, 
I can't decide if it interferes with Duck Typing or not...  A  great 
example is escaping me.

It may indeed be useful, but it is hard to argue that it isn't ugly.  ;)

James Edward Gray II "

Mike Fletcher wrote:

>Zach wrote:
>[...]
>  
>
>>Does anyone see advantages to using Hungarian Case to variable names in
>>Ruby, or do you think it may hinder as some people call "accidental
>>abstraction" [Bill Davis] ? Since Ruby is big with "Duck Typing", would
>>using Hungarian Case be more of a verbal obstacle than a more
>>descriptive variable. What about varying degrees, such as for integers,
>>doubles, strings, and o for Objects, but not exhaustive?
>>
>>(For those who don't know about Hungarian typing, it would similar to an
>>integer you would name "counter" being named "iCounter" or a variable
>>you would normally name "duck" be "oDuck" because it is an object)
>>    
>>
>
>See this article on what Hungarian notation really was meant to help 
>with (it was meant to provide semantic type (this value is used for X) 
>not data type (this value is an int)).
>
>http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html
>
>  
>