----- Forwarded message from James Kelly <J.Kelly@xxxxxxxxxx> -----
I have some thoughts on how to better understand VisAD, and was interested
to hear other opinions.
Looking through the VisAD examples I find the examples easier to understand
if I adopt a consistent convention for the variable names.
The aim here is to have variable names which suggest what the
underlying structure is, and which I can understand just
by looking at them. This relieves me of the burden of looking
back through the code continuously to see what a given variable
Combined with using Hungarian notatation (eg preceeding FunctionType
variable names with ft), and listing all the variables in say 30 lines or so,
I can understand the flow of the program (after some study
and cross reference to the program of course).
--- clip ---
Hungarian notation is very undesirable
2. Don't use Encodings:
Encoded names require decyphering. This is true for hungarian
and other 'type-encoded' or otherwise encoded variable names.
Besides, encoded names are seldom pronouncable (#1).
When you worked in name-length-challenged programs, you
probably violated this rule with impunity and regret. Fortran
forced it by basing type on the first letter, making the
first letter a 'code' for the type. Hungarian has taken this
to a whole new level.
Of course, you can get used to anything, but why create an
artificial learning curve for new hires? Avoid this if you
can avoid it.