Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
The odd thing is if you are a markup modelHead, you were probably doing the right thing anyway. I found the comparison to System Hungarian interesting because for some of our programmers, it is still practically heresy to suggest that prefixes for kinds are good whereas prefixes for types aren't all that useful. On the other hand, spending a lot of time in Foxpro, I learned to appreciate prefixes for type. Saved me from some idiot things the onlyOccasional programmer does. Now if I could only master USE statements across macros. :-) len It probably is a bad idea to notate a programming or graphics language in markup or to use markup for modeling but the damage is done. Like Hungarian notation, there will be a counterrevolution that will do an equal amount of damage in another direction. From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@g...] On 8/2/05, Stefan Tilkov <stefan.tilkov@i...> wrote: > I used to agree with you [about Hungarian notation] until I read this: http:// > www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html > Hungarian notation has an (undeserved) bad reputation. +1 That's a real eye-opening piece. In a nutshell : "we decided that us meant "unsafe string" and s meant "safe string." They're both of type string. The compiler won't help you if you assign one to the other and Intellisense won't tell you bupkis. But they are semantically different; they need to be interpreted differently and treated differently"
|
