 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / C# / March 2008How name employee first name label and textbox, if not via Hungarian notation?
For all those anti-Hungarian notation people out there, how would you name an employee first name label and textbox on an create/modify employee form, respectively (please)? Thanks, Ron > For all those anti-Hungarian notation people out there, how would you > name an employee first name label and textbox on an create/modify > employee form, respectively (please)? I'm not even anti-Hungarian and I don't find this a difficult question. You name them anything you want, as long as it's reasonably descriptive. How about "FirstNameLabel" and "FirstNameTextBox" or "FirstNameField"? Of course, if you're not changing the label text at run-time, you probably don't care what the name is, and in fact could forego generating the member field for the control altogether (just disable that in the Designer for the label). That would be my preference, and then you don't even need to qualify "FirstName" with a control type or description; you could just call it "FirstName" and that would be unique and clear enough (for a program not using Hungarian, anyway :) ). Pete Thanks Pete. My main problem is that, since we abandoned silly Hungarian notation (against my wishes), we are now naming things as "FirstNameTextBox" instead of txtFirstName. To me this is just the same as Hungarian, just post, not pre.. and longer (although one doesn't need a reference lookup to know txt is for TextBox). It just doesn't seem to me that the arguments against Hungarian outweigh the arguments for it. But Hungarian gets a bad rap as being mickey-mouse/the old way/not what "real" engineers do. I'm just not seeing it. Thanks, Ron >> For all those anti-Hungarian notation people out there, how would you >> name an employee first name label and textbox on an create/modify [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pete > Thanks Pete. My main problem is that, since we abandoned silly > Hungarian notation (against my wishes), we are now naming things as > "FirstNameTextBox" instead of txtFirstName. To me this is just the same > as Hungarian, just post, not pre.. and longer (although one doesn't need > a reference lookup to know txt is for TextBox). Well, if you need to distinguish between two things that both relate to "FirstName", you need _something_. Yes, putting the type as that qualifier does make it seem a lot like Hungarian, but I don't think it's really doing the same thing. It only provides semantic type information by coincidence, and mainly it's just allowing you to distinguish from the label version of the same thing. In fact, that's why I think that "FirstNameField", or "FirstNameEdit" (to name another possibility) is just as useful as "FirstNameTextBox". I would agree that they are not as useful as an actual Hungarian naming scheme, but it's not like they aren't useful and that naming convention does serve the purpose of providing immediately readable names (which addresses the most common complaint against Hungarian). And as I suggested, in most cases you wouldn't even need a member field for the Label control, in which case you could leave off the qualifier on the TextBox control's member field altogether. By the way, the names I offered as a suggestion would actually only be suitable for a property, not a field. Following the .NET naming convention, "camel case" would be appropriate for fields. So "FirstNameField" becomes "firstNameField", etc. > It just doesn't seem to me that the arguments against Hungarian outweigh > the arguments for it. But Hungarian gets a bad rap as being > mickey-mouse/the old way/not what "real" engineers do. Well, you won't get any argument from me with respect to the usefulness of Hungarian. I'm probably one of the last people writing .NET/C# code with Hungarian. I use it in Java too, in spite of the rabid derision spewed by certain members of the Java community toward anyone that doesn't follow Sun's naming convention. But as useful as I find Hungarian, IMHO it's more important in a team situation to find a convention that everyone can accept and which is still reasonably useful. I don't find .NET's conventions as useful as Hungarian, but they aren't bad either. Being consistent is more important sometimes than being perfect. :) Pete I absolutely agree with Ronald and have reverted back to Hungarian. The arguments to abandon Hungarian are fallacious, unsound and pragmatically wasteful if even at the micro-level, the argument it is what it is and is what it was; a terrible idea imposed by shallow minded thinkers presuming the use of Intellisense would prove sufficient. Worse yet, when proven how illogical their fallacy they usually skulk away in denial or pull rank while sniffing their haughty nose in the air. <%= Clinton Gallagher >> Thanks Pete. My main problem is that, since we abandoned silly >> Hungarian notation (against my wishes), we are now naming things as [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Pete I absolutely agree with Ronald and have reverted back to Hungarian. The arguments to abandon Hungarian are fallacious, unsound and pragmatically wasteful if even at the micro-level, the argument it is what it is and is what it was; a terrible idea imposed by shallow minded thinkers presuming the use of Intellisense would prove sufficient. Worse yet, when proven how illogical their fallacy they usually skulk away in denial or pull rank while sniffing their haughty nose in the air. D.) All of the above. <%= Clinton Gallagher >> Thanks Pete. My main problem is that, since we abandoned silly >> Hungarian notation (against my wishes), we are now naming things as [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Pete Our company policy is "No hungarian, except for GUI/UI components". As in, actually items "drawn" on a form. And not a parameter to a procedure. txtFirstName lblFirstName ddlDepartmentList those are ok. public void Method1 ( System.Web.UI.TextBox txtTextBox1 ) {} is not ok. public void Method1 ( System.Web.UI.TextBox tb) {} public void Method1 ( System.Web.UI.TextBox tb1 ,System.Web.UI.TextBox b2 ) {} are ok. This is ~a~ company policy. I'm not saying every company in the work should do that. But yeah, I have also found any non hungarian solutions for the UI components drawn on a page....more cumbersome than its worth. ...... but as far as code.....i hate hungarian. int iAge = 18; instead of int age = 18; is unnecessary verbosity IMHO. .. > For all those anti-Hungarian notation people out there, how would you name > an employee first name label and textbox on an create/modify employee > form, respectively (please)? > > Thanks, > Ron > Our company policy is "No hungarian, except for GUI/UI components". > As in, actually items "drawn" on a form. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Thanks, > > Ron I am not sure if it is ok to post a question on someone else's post.. But I am pretty sure some one will tell me ;) what about the ui_camelCase or ui_PascalCase? e.g ui_firstName ui_startDate (this will help if the control changes from ddl to a txt) is that a good idea? if it is then i would like to reask the same question, how would i name a label and a text for Name? I tried uiFirstName for about 2 weeks and hated it. ......... One issue with hungarian is that you run out of prefixes when you prefix EVERYTHING. If you have a small known set of ui components....then it kinda works. txtFirstName ddlDepartmentList repMain (repeater) dgMain (datagrid) gvMain (gridview) When is the last time you actually changed a txtDept to a ddlDept? It happens so rare, its not worth it. ........... >> Our company policy is "No hungarian, except for GUI/UI components". >> As in, actually items "drawn" on a form. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > is that a good idea? if it is then i would like to reask the same > question, how would i name a label and a text for Name? > [...] > but as far as code.....i hate hungarian. Don't hate it until you understand it. > int iAge = 18; > instead of > int age = 18; > > is unnecessary verbosity IMHO. The former is not correct Hungarian, whereas the latter actually is (or at least may be, depending on whether you're consistent about having an "age" type tag). As I find myself saying so often in these sorts of threads, the people who seem to hate Hungarian most vehemently are the same people who don't actually know how to use Hungarian. They aren't qualified to make a judgment as to whether Hungarian is useful or proper. Pete Can you post a link to a "true" hungarian naming convention website? I am one of those unqualified people apparently. I guess I haven't used it frequently enough that my memory about it has suffered. .. > [...] > but as far as code.....i hate hungarian. Don't hate it until you understand it. > int iAge = 18; > instead of > int age = 18; > > is unnecessary verbosity IMHO. The former is not correct Hungarian, whereas the latter actually is (or at least may be, depending on whether you're consistent about having an "age" type tag). As I find myself saying so often in these sorts of threads, the people who seem to hate Hungarian most vehemently are the same people who don't actually know how to use Hungarian. They aren't qualified to make a judgment as to whether Hungarian is useful or proper. Pete > Can you post a link to a "true" hungarian naming convention website? The last time this came up in this newsgroup, I posted a message with these two links: http://www.byteshift.de/msg/hungarian-notation-doug-klunder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation You can find the message here: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp/msg/098f 849afc26efd6 In that message, in the context of mentioning the Wikipedia link, I point out that in my opinion what they is described as "systems" Hungarian is not Hungarian at all, and is probably one of the biggest reasons most people don't like Hungarian. Because they think it _is_ Hungarian, and since "systems" Hungarian is in fact awful and pointless, of course they come away with the impression that Hungarian itself is awful and pointless. "Apps" Hungarian is much more appropriate. It's still a specific dialect and you need not use the "apps"-specific conventions, but inasmuch as "apps" Hungarian follows the true spirit of Hungarian, it's a good model to start with. Of course, you can use Google as well as anyone else to find more threads in this newsgroup as well as a variety of discussing elsewhere on the web (keeping in mind that you are likely to come across a fair number of references that malign Hungarian without really understanding it...keep your "critical thinking cap" on :) ) Pete
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.