— 2 min read
Yesterday, we had the first part of this series on quick wins and simple steps to improve your code quality. It was about naming — specifically variables and method names.
Two things were not 100% right in these examples.
You might have noticed that my loop examples were written in Ruby code. Yet the method name
doSomething was written in camelCase. This is unusual for Ruby code where developers tend to use snake_case for method names.
I did not lint that email. Hence no robot told me about my error. I believe it is a good example of the benefit of automatic linting. This error would have been found. If you read the code and were put off by this naming scheme, you even experienced why conventions and rules are necessary: Because coding by the rules helps developers to focus on the semantics of the code, not the syntax.
for loop example? I complained about the
i variable and that it should be called
iterator. Perhaps you did not like this idea and my example? Let me take a step back for a second.
When naming variables and method names, you have to make sure they "speak." The names should indicate their meaning and make it easier for another developer to understand the semantics of your code. Yet, when you are fully aware of the problem domain you code deals with, it can happen that you try to be too specific. If you are, you tend to use long, verbose names for variables and methods. An example could be this:
A common value for the allowed length of method names is 30 chars. The above example could be broken into two methods.
The next possible quick win might be to think about the existence of these methods inside the
Article class. Verifying and fixing meta tags surely does not need to be done inside this class. If you want to follow the Single Responsibility Principle, you should make sure that the Article class does not have a reason to change, if you decide to change something about verifying and fixing meta tags. Rather the Article class might change when you decide that an article should have a mandatory sub-headline.
Back to the
iterator. This name could pass the test for too specific. Only, when
Tomorrow we'll look at another example for 2 and a practical idea of what to do about it.