+1 for avoiding dynamically constructed identifiers when possible. Fulltext search across multiple files is available in most tools, let it be useful. It sucks having to search for a substring, hoping you guessed the way it gets constructed. Plus, it might not even occur to you that this is what you need to try.
No, no, one of the main benefits of OOP is information hiding. If your code is too greppable, developers can circumvent the information hiding.
(Sarcasm)
Very good points. A codebase that gets this VERY wrong is Gitlab. I think it might be a dumb characteristic of Ruby programs, but they generate identifiers all over the place. I once had to literally give up following some code because I could not find what it was calling anywhere. Insanity.
Another point: don’t use - in names. Eventually you’ll have to write them down in a programming language, at which point you have to change the name. CSS made this mistake. foo-bar in CSS maps to fooBar in Javascript. Rust also made this mistake with crate names. A crate called foo-bar magically becomes foo_bar in Rust code.
I’ve been working in Ruby on Rails lately (unfortunately) and yeah it’s extremely bad at this. There’s so much hidden implicit behavior everywhere.
Ruby on Rails is the worst thing to ever happen to Ruby. The language is great, much better than Python from a tooling perspective. And then Rails came along and ruined everything. I sincerely believe that the reason Python won out is solely because of Rails, because Ruby is better in every other regard.
The dash - vs underscore _ is also a common “problem” with CLI arguments --file-name, that are mapped to variable names file_name.
Has nothing to do with Ruby and everything to do with rails. Rails is terrible.
I haven’t heard that in 15 years. The main reason to use Ruby is that it’s a better Python. The tooling is 10x better, it has all the same language features and more, it has easily enough packages to handle any situation you want, and it doesn’t have all the bike shedding that Python has.
You shouldn’t be writing applications in a scripting language anyway. They’re for scripting, it’s in the name.
I sort of agree with some points, especially the ones about dynamic identifier creation and renaming identifiers, but those last 2 to me sounds a lot like you don’t know how to search beyond the really basic “I want this string here”, I’m assuming that it’s an effort to enable whoever comes next to search and find everything they should find mindlessly, not knowing the project, since the author talks about navigating foreign code bases, but I think compromises can be made when you should expect just a bit more effort from contributors for the sake of a more rationally organised code base
It’s really about lowering cognitive load when making edits. It’s not necessarily that someone can’t figure out how to do something more sophisticated, but that they’re more likely to get things right if the code is just kind of straightforwardly dumb.
The last two are definitely situational – changing things like that might lower cognitive load for one kind of work but raise it significantly for another – but I can see where they’re coming from with those suggestions.
I agree with the first point. Always go for clarity over cleverness.
I somewhat disagree with the second point. Consistency is important. Stick with the same name when possible. But I think mixing camel case and snake case should be avoided. It can make the code less ”greppable” IMO, because now you need to remember which casing was used for each variable.
Kind of agree on the third point. I think flatness should be preferred when possible and when it makes sense. Easier to find the variables with the eyes rather than having to search through nested structures.
