Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] What's a another name for...?

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    ... Well, first of all, examples like these work better if all the variables are given names that make sense to the application, or the immediate usage, not
    Message 1 of 44 , Jul 31, 2003
      Around Thursday, July 31, 2003, 7:56:25 AM, shinobu@... wrote:

      > Here's a coding convention question:

      > If two variables in the same scope represents the same thing,
      > only in a different way, what would you call them?

      > For instance, when I iterate through Collection's, I do something like:
      > Collection stuffs;
      > // lots of stuff
      > Iterator stuffsIterator = stuffs.iterator();
      > while (stuffsIterator.hasNext()) {
      > Stuff stuff = (Stuff) stuffsIterator.next();
      > stuff.doYourStuff();
      > }

      > What irritates me is the "stuffsIterator", because I'd rather not have
      > class names embedded in the variable names. And "Iterator" is not so
      > familiar in the every-day context.

      > Another example is when I convert some object to another:
      > String number;
      > // set "number" somehow
      > int numberAsInt = Integer.parseInt(number);

      > Any good ideas?

      Well, first of all, examples like these work better if all the variables
      are given names that make sense to the application, or the immediate usage,
      not just names that reflect type. The declarations already tell us type:
      our variable names need to communicate purpose.

      And in the second example, the phrase "String number" is just about enough
      to crack my brain as early in the morning as I first read it. I might do
      something like this:

      String accountBalanceInput;
      // set accountBalanceInput somehow;
      int accountBalance = Integer.parseInt(accountBalanceInput);

      In the second case, I use a language that permits me a better deal, as does
      Ilja. However, if I had to use iterators, I would behave as if they were
      mostly irrelevant, and would give them trivial names, still giving the
      other objects application or usage-explaining names, perhaps like this:

      Collection transactionsOverLimit;
      Iterator iter = transactionsOverLimit.iterator();
      while (iter.hasNext()) {
      Transaction overLimitTrans = (Transaction) iter.next();

      In C#, I would more likely say:

      foreach(Transaction overLimitTrans in transactionsOverLimit)

      Ron Jeffries
      The practices are not the knowing: they are a path to the knowing.
    • Victor Goldberg
      I think we are having some miscommunication here. I wasn t talking about the sadness of pair programming. This can be quite rewarding, and a lot of ...
      Message 44 of 44 , Aug 5, 2003
        I think we are having some miscommunication here. I wasn't talking about
        the sadness of pair programming. This can be quite rewarding, and a lot of
        fun. My discussion was triggered by Bib Martin's comment:

        >> .... But expect squalls. I've seen people
        >> quit over this issue. I've also seen them fired. I saw one VP
        >> disassemble a team because one member completely blocked any progress the
        >> team would otherwise have made.

        I was wandering about the sadness of seeing other people fail in situations
        were they could have succeded, and we were unable to change the outcome,
        because we were not a in a position to make our voices heard.


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@...>
        To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:58 AM
        Subject: Re: [XP] New Pair

        > On Tuesday, August 5, 2003, at 12:28:34 AM, Victor Goldberg wrote:
        > >> Actually they do not leave a scar on my soul.
        > > Here I'll use a metaphor to venture an hypothesis. Did you see the
        > > The Pianist? It mostly happens in the Jewish Ghetto in Varsovia,
        > > during the Second World War. This is the true story of a Jewish
        pianist, a
        > > very sensitive person. Things keep getting worse and worse. Eventually,
        > > walks in the streets full with dead bodies. He doesn't care anymore.
        > > only thinks about survival. His soul has been so scarred, there is no
        > > for scars anymore. This is what I call denial and alienation, coping
        > > mechanisms.
        > > This was an extreme example, but quite graphic. My hypothesis is that
        > > is in some measure the meaning of what you said above. You lost the
        > > sensitivity for the kind of situation where things go wrong around you,
        > > your case in the working environment. This is your coping mechanism.
        > > may not be aware, but there is some probability this is the case. (of
        > > course, I may be totally wrong, but this is the way I visualize it).
        > Don't quit your day job, the telepathy thing isn't working out. Nothing
        > that happens in pair programming scars my soul. I face the truth of the
        > situation, the things I did well and the things I did poorly. They pass
        > through me, and at the end, I remain, changed, but the same.
        > > In my opinion, there is a value in not loosing touch with my feelings,
        > > keeping fresh my capability to empathize with those that for whatever
        > > (many times because of their own stupidity or ignorance) find themselves
        > > the hole.
        > Pairing doesn't hurt my feelings because (a) I'm quite confident in my
        > abilities, (b) quite aware of my failings, and (c) quite amused at how
        > frequently they appear together.
        > It does sometimes hurt my feelings when people tell me I'm a jerk for
        > pushing my ideas as hard and as well as I can, but that's off topic at the
        > moment.
        > As for most attacks, they would hurt if they hit me, but they generally do
        > not. It's a skill, perhaps even an art form. Most attacks are about the
        > attacker, not about the target.
        > >> ... What can you tell us about how that comes about?
        > > My coping mechanism has four components:
        > > 1. Accepting that many times I don't have the power to change
        > > 2. Accepting that it is not my role to live other people's lives.
        > > However, if I can be there to give a hand, I am glad to do that.
        > > 3. Observing what happens around me to try to put lessons learnt to
        > > use when possible.
        > > 4. Allowing for time to grieve, when needed. Sometimes empathy
        > > in a need to grieve for the pain of others.
        > Are we still talking about pair programming here, or are we talking about
        > walking through Dachau? I think the latter would bring me down, but the
        > former generally does not. The four things above seem out of proportion to
        > me to anything that can happen in a pair programming session. What am I
        > missing?
        > > The last one is probably the most overlooked coping mechanism in modern
        > > society. Yet, it's very important. People jump from activity to
        > > without staying in touch with their own feelings, denying them, and
        > > something gives and their world crumbles, and people don't even know
        > > their problem is.
        > Do "people" really do that? Are we really talking about "people" here?
        > (Don't worry, I wouldn't quit my day job either, if I had one.)
        > > The point is, not all problems in life have a happy resolution.
        > > how to navigate through the highs and lows helps to maximize the highs,
        > > at least minimize the lows. In most cases denial is just an
        > > illusion.
        > Happy is a reaction, not a result.
        > > One thing I find quite sad is the artificial dichotomy between business,
        > > science and engineering on one hand, and emotions on the other. This is
        > > dichotomy fervently promoted by the academic world. Because of this
        > > deficiency in our education, many of us leave school unprepared for the
        > > realities of life, and unable to negotiate productive relationships in
        > > working place (and let's not mention our private lives).
        > Do "many of us" really experience all this? Is there really such a
        > dichotomy? Does the "academic world" really fervently promote anything
        > any notable consistency? To the extent that I may from time to time not
        > have been entirely in touch and integrated with respect to my emotions, it
        > has not occurred to me to blame this on business, science, engineering, or
        > Professor Dansky. I always supposed it was something about me.
        > > As individuals, we
        > > are the unity of all these dimensions. Denying any of these dimensions
        > > reduces both our effectiveness and our quality of life.
        > Yes, I hold this to be quite true.
        > > In this sense there
        > > is an interesting analogy with XP, where the integration of all the
        > > components of design and development at the smallest level of
        > > gives the best results.
        > Yes. Now again, about pair programming. You said, talking I thought about
        > pairing, that some kinds of moments made you sad. Tell us, please, about
        > one such moment?
        > Ron Jeffries
        > www.XProgramming.com
        > When all ideas of [XP] is and [XP] is not have been extinguished,
        > then [XP] reality will manifest itself. -- Thich Nhat Hanh [Ron Jeffries]
        > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.