Well-chosen identifiers make it significantly easier for developers and analysts to understand what the system is doing and how to fix or extend the source code to apply for new needs. These challenges may be exacerbated if the naming convention rules are internally inconsistent, arbitrary, difficult to remember, or otherwise perceived as more burdensome than beneficial. Moreover, even with known and well-defined naming conventions in place, some organizations may fail to consistently adhere to them, causing inconsistency and confusion. The choice of naming conventions (and the extent to which they are enforced) is often a contentious issue, with partisans holding their viewpoint to be the best and others to be inferior.
to provide better understanding in case of code reuse after a long interval of time. to provide meaningful data to be used in project handovers which require submission of program source code and all relevant documentation. to help avoid "naming collisions" that might occur when the work product of different organizations is combined (see also: namespaces). to enhance the aesthetic and professional appearance of work product (for example, by disallowing overly long names, comical or "cute" names, or abbreviations). to enhance clarity in cases of potential ambiguity. to enable the use of automated refactoring or search and replace tools with minimal potential for error. to help formalize expectations and promote consistency within a development team. to provide additional information (i.e., metadata) about the use to which an identifier is put. Some of the potential benefits that can be obtained by adopting a naming convention include the following: 5.3 Composite word scheme (OF Language). 4.3.3 Examples of multiple-word identifier formats.
0 kommentar(er)
