Erik Mooney wrote:
Hungarian is quite useful in high-level languages -- I invariably use it there.
Actually, its real effect is that it forces you to _think_ about how you type and
scope your variables. But it doesn't help much in assembly language where
the concepts of scoping and typing don't exist.
And funkyJavaCaps had first been funkyCCaps for years, and is equally
silly in either language. :)
I've seen it called "camelNotation", since you're sticking humps in the
middle of your variable names, but not at the beginning (then it'd be
"CamelNotationWithTheCamel'sHeadUpLookingForWaterNotation", which is
obviously a horrible name both to type and b/c it's got a single quote
in the name -- nor is there a camel on earth with ten humps, at least
not since Ali Tenhump died in 1965).
So I, of course, use "hgrCamelNotation" and tend to use variable names
like "intIssueCount". I wonder what kind of treat I have to look
forward to if I ever make it to a CGE...
Honestly though, Hungarian notation (or another convention that keeps
variable type and variable scope in variable names, like "gs_foo" for a
global string) makes even commentless code so much easier to follow I
can't see why anyone *wouldn't* use it in Java, C, VB, C#, etc. When I
have to update legacy code or work on a team at work, I'd say I get up
to speed on large sub/functs/methods twice as quickly when Hungarian
notation (or something equal) is used.
But I certainly agree that for the 6507, calling $88 "bytFoo" is pretty
silly.
Ruffin Bailey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/
