<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"><html>
<head>
<meta name="Generator" content="Zarafa WebAccess v6.20.4-14107">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<title>Convenience over extensibility? Or: How to build on top of hu.dwim.rdbms?</title>
<style type="text/css">
body
{
font-family: Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif;
font-size: 12px;
padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
margin: 0px;
border-style: none;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
p, ul, li
{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 0px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>One more critic.<br /><br />Constantly you have to come up with names that describe things that can't be (easily) described objectively<br />and therefore make hardly more sense to an outsider than short names.<br /><br />I see unit tests as more import than long names (and shorter because of the use of short names)<br />even if they seem redundant at times. They make a great documenation.<br />A documentation that can test itself and describes code most accurately.<br />In my opinion, the letters you save with short names should go into unit tests.<br /><br />That said, short names have their drawbacks, of course, and it's also a personal question. (who you came from, genetics etc)</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Regards,</p><p>chris</p>
!DSPAM:4cd7ea3648581477279777!
</body>
</html>