From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2006-01-21T06:03:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Hungarian Case variable names.

On 20/01/06, Zach <zacharooni@comcast.net> wrote:
> This is an ignorant question to pose, but here I go anyway.

> 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)

> I know this is a rather old topic to be bringing into a newer
> technology, but I'm curious on what your all's take is on this.

The term is actually Apps Hungarian and System Hungarian naming. What
you show (iCounter) is System Hungarian and is not what the originator
of Hungarian naming wanted, promulgated improperly through (primarily)
Charles Petzold and Microsoft MSDN documentation.

More useful would be something like "cbCounter" which means "count of
bytes called Counter". It encodes the purpose of the variable instead of
the type of the variables. However, in Ruby, it'd probably be more
idiomatic to simply use "byte_counter".

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca