From: RichardOnRails Date: 2007-11-22T10:30:04+09:00 Subject: Re: False positives in editing data On Nov 21, 12:39 pm, Clifford Heath wrote: > RichardOnRails wrote: > >>>> sName =~ /^([\d]+)?\.?([\d]+)?\.?([\d]+)?\.?/ > >> sName > > > Did you draw attention to this because of the Hungarian notation? If > > so, do you think I'm unwise to adopt the style once advocated by > > Charles Simoni, super-programmer and co-founder of a giant software > > company? > > Yes. Adamantly, and definitely yes. > > I might have been a bad idea when he had it, even though to his > credit he was trying to make the best of a bad situation, where > MS had bought the worst C compiler on the planet because the good > ones weren't for sale - they could make more money *not* selling > to MS. Because of a spate of bugs and bad code churned out by the > MS software factory, many caused by type mismatches on function > parameters that weren't detected either at compile time or at > runtime, Hungarian notation *might* have been a good idea once. > > It's definitely *not* a good idea with modern C, and even less of > a good idea with Ruby. > > Clifford Heath. Hi Clifford, > It's definitely *not* a good idea with modern C, and even less of > a good idea with Ruby. I don't know anything about Microsoft's choice of compilers. But I used several C compilers in the '80s, and all cases found Hungarian notation helpful. I don't think Microsoft's initial choice of compilers is relevant to my and other's successful employment of that convention. Why would it be a bad idea with modern C compilers or with Ruby? You offer no reason. All it does is add one or two letters before names! That doesn't bother any human or compiler or interpreter. To my ears, it sounds like you're telling me you like chocolate after learning that I like vanilla. I'm reminded of George Wallace's assessment of the difference between Democrats vs. Republicans: "There's not a dime's worth of difference. Best wishes, Richard