home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: linus.mitre.org!spectre!eachus
- From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.modula2,comp.edu,comp.lang.eiffel
- Subject: Re: Hungarian notation
- Date: 04 Jan 1996 22:28:03 GMT
- Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
- Message-ID: <EACHUS.96Jan4172803@spectre.mitre.org>
- References: <30C40F77.53B5@swsbbs.com> <marnoldDJEvtJ.1Lx@netcom.com>
- <4cc2ga$lri@navajo.gate.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: spectre.mitre.org
- In-reply-to: feathers@gate.net's message of 2 Jan 1996 14:53:46 -0500
-
- In article <4cc2ga$lri@navajo.gate.net> feathers@gate.net (Michael Feathers) writes:
-
- > Kevin Rigotti (rigotti@hermes.dra.hmg.gb) wrote:
- > : Certainly, I would be horrified if anyone here handed me Hungarianized
- > : Ada for code review ... I would need considerable persuasion not to
- > : 'fail' it immediately.
-
- > Sounds like a religous argument.
-
- Just sounds like. One of the main advantages of Ada is that it
- lets you defer the decision on how to implement a type. If you use
- Hungarian notation, the decision is forced by the first (and every
- subsequent) variable, constant or parameter name. Also the
- information given by the Hungarian notation is at the wrong level of
- abstraction.
-
- So yes it is a software engineering reason, and it would be
- conceivable that on some project it would be justified. But my
- initial reaction would be the same.
-
-
- --
-
- Robert I. Eachus
-
- with Standard_Disclaimer;
- use Standard_Disclaimer;
- function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
-