Naming conventions [was: Food Fight]

[Ken Ray]

On 6/22/05 11:40 AM, "Dennis Brown" <see3d at writeme.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the many replies about naming conventions.  So to summarize:
> 
> 1.  The cryptic names are not really being pushed to make things
> unreadable, but as protection from the deficiencies of Rev.
>
> (etc.)

I guess you could say that... and keep in mind that these "deficiencies"
didn't start with Rev - *all* xTalk languages (AFAIK) suffer these same
defiencies. So until RunRev does something about it (and based on the
Monterey Conference it is on their list of things to address), we have to
"make do". The proposed guidelines at the RevInterop group
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/revInterop/) are there to help provide some
consistency in naming conventions so we can be as efficient as we can be
with the current situation.

Honestly, Dennis, you don't have to do anything if you don't want to; if
you're only developing your own stuff, you can easily keep your names unique
in any way you choose. It's only when you start integrating other people's
code or libraries that you might want to consider it.
 
> BTW: My current project (1 stack 1 card) has over 100 globals defined
> (many are large arrays) so that I can use a combination of created
> scripted groups of objects and common handlers where possible without
> needing to pass many arguments.  I have to do this awkward thing to
> make up for the slow speed of array processing and ironically to make
> my scripts maintainable.

Wow... sounds like you may be making too much work for yourself. 1 card with
100 globals doesn't seem right to me (but then again I don't know the
specifics of your project). If there's some way I can help to optimize your
project, please let me know offlist (unless your already sure you've done
everything you can). I'd really be interested to know about why arrays are
so slow for what you're doing.

Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
Email: kray at sonsothunder.com