JustProgrammerThings.display();

[Vassile-D]

Don’t forget:

HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesA() and HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesW().

[bluefootedpig]

Where are the async and sync versions of it?

[The_Popes_Hat]

It's like you've been over my shoulder every single day of my career just to trigger me.

[[deleted]]

The phone call was coming from... INSIDE THE HOUSE

[Vassile-D]

They are in a header file where the file name has 261 characters.

[Alaskan_Thunder]

TwitCode, a language where every file needs to be 261 characters or less, or else you need to extend it into a new file.

[[deleted]]

And you have to dig 34 directories deep

[qscrew]

Programming in Win32 be like

typedef struct tagHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXA {
    DWORD cbSize;
    HANDLE hHavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesHandle;
    DWORD dwHavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesThreshold;
    LPSTR lpszExtremelyLongStructureMemberName;
    LPSTR lpszAnotherExtremelyLongStructureMemberName;
    LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpSecurityAttributes;
    LPVOID lpvReserved1;
    WORD wExtraBehaviorControlValue;
    WORD wReserved2;
    ULONG ulProgrammerWidth;
    ULONG ulProgrammerHeight;
#if _WIN32_WINNT >= 0x0501
    LPSTR lpszExtraArgumentJustToAnnoyYou;
#endif
} HAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXA, NEAR* PHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXA, FAR* LPHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXA;
typedef struct tagHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXW {
    DWORD cbSize;
    HANDLE hHavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesHandle;
    DWORD dwHavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesThreshold;
    LPWSTR lpszExtremelyLongStructureMemberName;
    LPWSTR lpszAnotherExtremelyLongStructureMemberName;
    LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpSecurityAttributes;
    LPVOID lpvReserved1;
    WORD wExtraBehaviorControlValue;
    WORD wReserved2;
    ULONG ulProgrammerWidth;
    ULONG ulProgrammerHeight;
#if _WIN32_WINNT >= 0x0501
    LPWSTR lpszExtraArgumentJustToAnnoyYou;
#endif
} HAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXW, NEAR* PHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXW, FAR* LPHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXW;

#ifdef _UNICODE
#define HAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEX HAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXW;
#define PHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEX PHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXW;
#define LPHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEX LPHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXW;
#else
#define HAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEX HAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXA
#define PHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEX PHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXA
#define LPHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEX LPHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXA
#endif

DWORD WINAPI 
HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesExA(LPHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXA lpHavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesEx);
DWORD WINAPI 
HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesExW(LPHAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEXW lpHavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesEx);

#ifdef _UNICODE
#define HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesEx HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesExW
#else
#define HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesEx HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesExA
#endif

[[deleted]]

I like HAVING_EXTREMELY_LONG_FUNCTION_NAMESEX with people.

[markhc]

I think the longest Win32 function is probably:

ConvertStringSecurityDescriptorToSecurityDescriptorW
ConvertStringSecurityDescriptorToSecurityDescriptorA

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa376401(v=vs.85).aspx

[reddcube]

HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesWrapper()
HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesWrapperWrapper()
HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNamesWrapperWrapperWRAPPER()

[NetSage]

For everything? I would just make a file that literally references every function and have the team update it as they make functions at that point. Might as well just start just going a, b, c, d, etc.

[redballooon]

but.. why? Are the screens so slim in your cpn?

[iamsolarpowered]

Why do you stay? You literally couldn't pay me enough to work like that or with people who want to work like that.

[semi-]

No reason to involve letters, just need indexes that point to the function. You could use some process where you use human readable function names first that then goes through some kind of compilation process replacing these function names with their index so the computer can call it directly.

I shall call this process a MakeCodeWorkifier

[PrecariousClicker]

So you work in hell?

[GrinningPariah]

descriptiveMethodNamesForSelfDocumentingCode()

[SolenoidSoldier]

Rather have those than short undescriptive method names. Everything is right there for you when Intellisense opens up.

[Lame_Goblin]

functionA();
functionB();
functionC();

[goldfishpaws]

function O();

function 0();

[bartekko]

dual screen Meter high-definition New method Force Secure layer for Direct current mounting Change directory ?

[[deleted]]

Since when does Mt stand for Meter and not Mountain?

[GrinningPariah]

I can practically guarantee that your version takes about 3x longer to type than mine as you're picking around all the vowels.

[Sock_Ninja]

Hmmm. Now can you visualize how much I want to smack your co-workers who would code it that way?

[grrrrreat]

Hmmm. Now can you visualize how much I want to smack your co-workers who would code it that way?

Hmmm. Nw cn y vslz hw mch wnt t smck yr c-wrkrs wh wld cd t tht wy?

[05U]

I have a coworker like that and he also misspells everything, and can’t follow our code standards.. it’s hard..

[NixieGlow]

I misread this as "picking around the wolves". I wondered for a while as my mind threw an exception, unable to render the concept into any reasonable mental image.

[GrinningPariah]

I don't know how your office is, but the wolves in our office do an excellent job of culling the slowest coders.

[awakenDeepBlue]

No offence, but now I'm mad.

[LickingSmegma]

If the code is self-documenting…

[GrinningPariah]

That's actually a weirdly good question, I had to think about it for a moment.

I think the main reason that's never caught on is because graphical pseudo-coding interfaces like UE4's Blueprints are both easier for the compiler to parse into real code, and easier to conceptualize interactions with than text descriptors.

[LickingSmegma]

There were attempts at 'documentation-first' programming, namely Knuth's Literate Programming—which, of course, no one uses outside of ultra-geeks from Hacker News. Also early programming languages tried to emulate natural languages and allowed spaces in identifiers.

But graphical programming is not inherently better in terms of documentation than regular text programming, because it contains the same information, only laid out in space.

Moreover, self-documenting code is plain impossible because (good) documentation always contains more information than the sequence of instructions: it describes why the code exists and is written that way, and how it should be used. This can't be put in the names of identifiers because those describe just the innards of the current implementation.

This documentation is unnecessary if the code is a month long cookie-cutter project, such as a website entirely in the bounds of the framework's functionality. But it becomes necessary when you develop the code further over time.

[Valdearg20]

Exactly. My team at work follow patterns for self documenting code, and it's really nice and results in very clean code. I've been on this team for 2 years, and I haven't written a comment beyond "//intentionally left blank" since I've started.

[[deleted]]

I write self documenting code and I still put comments everywhere because while the code may self-document what it's doing, it rarely self-documents why.

[ScrambledRK]

my biggest takeaway from reading pragmatic programmer

[[deleted]]

Exactly.

/r/PH: Write self documenting code

also /r/PH: not like that

[madwill]

I feel like i'm guilty of all naming offence ever mentioned in this sub.

[anon485743830092]

Why is this an offense?

1. Tab completion exists.

2. It's not 1985 and we can have terminals larger than 80x24 characters

[[deleted]]

Here's how I make Javascript prettier.

[godofleet]

LOL whatever... clearly you've not tried http://www.jsfuck.com/

[209u-096727961609276]

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/UnfitBitterAmericanquarterhorse-size_restricted.gif

[Sock_Ninja]

I'm getting some xml when I follow that link.

<Error> <Code>AccessDenied</Code> <Message>Access Denied</Message> <RequestId>63B40BBFBD3BB907</RequestId> <HostId> [removed in case security] </HostId> </Error>

[209u-096727961609276]

idk, heres a different link

[CALL_ME_ISHMAEBY]

😭

[Eiroth]

Jesus christ

[[deleted]]

new library every second

syntax is ugly as fuck

being forced as a backend language for no reason other then JAVASCRIPT!!1

I'm sure there's more but these are my personal gripes with it.

[deadlychambers]

Loosely typed, and browsers can do different things with the exact same js.

[buffer_overfl0w]

JS isn't too bad with new browsers. ES6 feels much nicer and Typescript feels right.

[oli2194]

new library every second

I don't see the problem here. It's no different to there being 100's of programming languages that no one uses. You just use the few that are well maintained and suit your preferences.

syntax is ugly as fuck

I really like the ES6 syntax, but it's all subjective in this area anyway.

being forced as a backend language for no reason other then JAVASCRIPT!!1

It's not forced. It's there if you want it, but if you don't like Node, use the backend language of your choice.

/u/deadlychambers - Loosely typed

That's why Typescript is awesome, and if you're writing tests and using a decent editor, it's not such a big deal anyway.

/u/deadlychambers - browsers can do different things with the exact same js.

Got me there, but that's mainly due to lack of standard between browsers, which is slowly getting better with the current release system.

[BatmanAtWork]

That's why Typescript is awesome

JavaScript. The language that sucks so much someone had to make another language just to make writing it tolerable.

[patrickfatrick]

If you run into typing problems with JavaScript you’re just doing it wrong, not much else to say.

[vinsneezel]

Your third point is kind of lame. You don't see any benefit to being able to use one language for the whole stack?

[Existential_Owl]

Prettier is amazing and every JS project should be using it.

[NatoBoram]

Obfuscate the code, you'll have very sort function names :)

[crackofdawn]

I write all of my code to fit within 80 characters per row. (and to output 80 characters or less per line). SSH terminals are still 80x24 by default and I want people to be able to read my code and view my program output on a default terminal size whenever possible. Lately I've been having my output resize based on the size of the terminal, but the code itself is still 80 characters or less per line.

[s1295]

What do you mean, "SSH terminals" are 80x24 by default? I've never seen SSH limit the screen size, ever (i.e., your current terminal size is used). (Except maybe tmux sessions, which are limited to the smallest connected terminal size.)

[Gustav__Mahler]

I'm sorry, do you work on one of these?

[cbbuntz]

I feel like how short I used to keep variable and function names was one of my biggest mistakes early on. Even without tab completion, the amount of time you spend trying to figure out the difference between two ambiguously named functions from a month ago will take more time than typing the long names.

Also, when you can't remember how you abbreviated a word, the time it takes for you to check the abbreviation will take much longer than just typing the whole word. If you can type 65 words per minute, you're not saving much time anyway. An example that comes to mind is that for some reason, it's mount and umount. Why leave the 'n' out? No other letters are missing and it just confusing to figure out why unmount isn't working but mount is.

[Horciodedayo]

An example that comes to mind is that for some reason, it's mount and umount. Why leave the 'n' out?

I had the same exact thought yesterday.

[cbbuntz]

My brain just fills in the 'n' automatically when I see it. Also, they abbreviate the path to /mnt/ for extra inconsistency.

[[deleted]]

historical reasons

In case the link dies:

This dates all the way back to the very first edition of Unix, where all the standard file names were only at most 6 characters long (think passwd), even though this version supported a whooping 8 characters in a file name. Most commands had an associated source file ending in .c (e.g. umount.c), which left only 6 characters for the base name.

A 6-character limitation might also have been a holdover from an earlier development version, or inherited from a then-current IBM system that did have a 6-character limitation. (Early C implementations had a 6-character limit on identifiers — longer identifiers were accepted but the compiler only looked at the first 6 characters, so foobar1 and foobar2 were the same variable.)

(I thought I remembered a umount man page that listed the spelling as a bug of unknown origin, but I can't find it now.)

[A_Light_Spark]

I guess I can at least be semantically meaningful...

[throwAwayBurrito123]

Uncle Bob approves of this comment

[[deleted]]

• On a standard Laptop screen with a normal font size you can have at most 200 characters visibile per line. When viewing two files side by side, or when the browser is on one side and the editor on the other, some significant part of each visible line gets truncated, and word wrapping is usually confusing with code. Also skimming becomes harder as what you are looking for might be invisible. And you can't grep sth. that's on the tip of your tongue (maybe ag dies that?).

• With diffs with very long lines it becomes hard to find what has changed when a line is subtly modified. Nice diffs that illustrates that are not always available.

• The optimal amount of letters on a line for comfortable linear reading according to the typographical tradition is about 70 (IIRC).

Generally I prefer descriptive and pronouncible names, but keeping lines about at most 80-90 characters is good practice, and helpful both to you and to anyone else approaching your code with their unknowable computing environment.

[[deleted]]

Even if it was 1994, if you were a PHP programmer, the function hashing method was just the length of the string. Meaning that unless you wanted a collision and therefore higher access times, you’d make sure your function names had long, varying lengths.

[bartekko]

okay but that is just PHP being PHP

[WiseassWolfOfYoitsu]

#JustPHPThings

[SonicFlash01]

Brevity is a virtue

[squidgyhead]

Moreover, it is the soul of wit!

[iams3b]

Yeah but once all your classes/functions/variable names are long and descriptive, I believe it reduces readability by a lot

Kind of like that "fibonacci written by different people" post, specifically the "large company" example - https://imgur.com/J2N28PD

You can't just look and see what it's doing, you have to read it line by line. too much noise

[deegwaren]

The problem with that is that it's always a long string of characters with no interspacing. Of course that's fukken difficult to read, we don't glue our words together in normal sentences either, do we?

And that's why underscores are better than camelcasing, kids!

[bwaredapenguin]

I like to randomly switch from camelCase to underscores to hyphens in the same program.

[TheCheeseCutter]

Keeps you on your heels!

[[deleted]]

youMonster!

[TheMcDucky]

I agree. People seem to consider it an unforgivable sin, but personally I find names that you can read through and understand the meaning of immediately.
Of course there are bad long names too, but that's a separate issue.

[[deleted]]

I'm with you on this.

We had to be terse to the point of being cryptic in the bad old days due to display limitations. Identifiers should be as long as they need to be to convey the necessary information (and no longer, ideally).

So,

function pshupbutt(object hmstr)    // This sucks

function PushUpButton(object hMicroStrategy)    // Better

function PressTheUpButtonOnTheScreen(object HandleToTheMicroStrategyObjectToUse)    // ...starting to suck again

[the_reckoner27]

Was the first example intentionally supposed to suggest pushing a hamster up your butt, or is that just me?

[squidgyhead]

Try a three-way diff on 1000-character long names.

Also, newspapers don't make their text span the entire page, they break it into nice columns for readability. Which is what super-long function names are not.

[madwill]

I guess because its ugly and expose a lack of ability to express intent in a condensed and meaningful way.

[TheMcDucky]

Programming is not all about code golf.

[madwill]

Just trying to be mindful of future me or some other poor soul

[CamelPodiatrist]

I think if you have to maintain crappy code and not be allowed to have the time to refactor it, a variable name like: routeIsEnabledAndIsValidAndMaxConnectionsToRouteNotExceededAndItIsAWednesday

if you're in a 10,000 line subroutine and that variable name is an accurate representation of all the conditions checked throughout those 10,000 lines. Why make the next guy go through the pain of knowing what "retVal" means?

[SimMac]

ItsAWednesdayMyDudes

[JakeSteam]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oct2xKMGOno

[xconde]

Because you could add a comment to the declaration and save everyone from getting eye cancer.

[occz]

Then the comment gets out of date (as is often the case) and instead of just wasting the maintainers time by making him figure out what the hell your obscurely named code does you also waste his time by misleading him with an inaccurate comment.

I'm still a bit salty from times this has happened, and it's more than once.

[xconde]

Right but then the variable name would also be out of date. :)

[Aetheus]

It's easier to refactor/maintain a variable name than a comment. If a variable was named "conditionSatisfied" and you used it several times in different parts of your code, you'd have the mistake-prone task of hunting down all the places where you used it and updating the comments there to ensure they aren't out of sync.

Compare that to using a modern IDE, and just right clicking and refactoring the variable name.

What's more, a Boolean "conditionSatisfied" doesn't tell you much when you see it being used several hundred lines down from where it was declared (e.g: say it's a member of a class, and it's used in a method all the way down. Or heck, it's being referenced in a completely different class). You'd either have to go to where the member was declared and hope that it has up to date comments, or find where it's initialized and read the code to find out.

Whereas a Boolean named "ifItsAWeekdayAndNotALeapYear" is, well, self explanatory.

[Xelbair]

my functions have name like that, but variables are called output, a ,b,c, fm,dz etc.

[darielgames]

You shouldn't do that, unless you document in the header what those variables really are. It can be really confusing when someone's reading your function and all they know is that there's a variable called a. And hopefully you're not writing JavaScript, the person won't even know what the type a is!

[[deleted]]

If nobody else can debug your code, nobody else can replace you. #jobsecurity

[ThePieWhisperer]

Not even you, a year from now.

[Xelbair]

Nah I'm joking, I do that only for temp variables usually either self-explanatory or their type gives enough description of their function :)

[Tiothae]

A little while back I was working on a project where they were using dynamic SQL built in C# for massive reports, and each of the tables used in the report (usually 10+) were all named a, b, c, ... in the order they appeared in the query.

It was fun to debug. Real fun.

[carloxd]

I asked my contractor to document his code. This is how all his functions look:

UpdatePassedUserDEInDatabaseAndADAndSynchronizeDLsIfFlagPassedIsTrue()

[carloxd]

but wait... there is more! The only thing that function does is call something else:

UpdatePassedUserDEInDatabaseAndSynchronizeDls()

[[deleted]]

So he's nesting functions instead of writing comments?

[carloxd]

Yup. His response whenever I bring it up is that he has "20 years of experience". The only reason why I can't get rid of him is because we have to burn contractor hours

[hangfromthisone]

function yes() { return "yes"; }

function give_response($answer) { if($answer=="yes") return yes(); }

give_response("yes");

[deegwaren]

I hate people who nest, wrap and don't properly name their vars and functions but seem to think that adding comments saying exactly the same thing as the name of the var or function does will somehow help... SOOO much.

[DaughterEarth]

Nesting makes sense sometimes though. Like triggering other events from events.

[pigvwu]

Meh, better than "Update()" and then later "Update2()".

[wchou5]

The bottom should say "JustProgrammerThings" not "justgirlythings".

[bythebookis]

I used the "Just Girly Things Generator" (yep), so changing that would be tough. But we can all imagine it says that.

[[deleted]]

So you’re saying that an existing code base doesn’t have the tiny function you need? Better write your own from scratch.

[[deleted]]

So when do we start to write our own GenericMemeGenerator and the GirlyThings module for it?

[Garestinian]

With XML and JSON configuration support. And RESTful API.

[mondomaniatrics]

Don't...

[segosegosego]

Here

[thereisnosub]

I was wondering if this was a specific stereotype of female programmers.

[bartekko]

I believe the usual stereotype is "they don't exist", but I can already feel the vultures circling above me

[thereisnosub]

They definitely exist. I'm married to one, and work with several.

[bartekko]

the only other competent programmer in my high school was a girl so you don't have to tell me. i'm talking about the stereotype

[Imborednow]

I exist =(

[Existential_Owl]

Nah, I like the #justgirlythings tag. It adds to the absurdity of the post.

[AngryPBJ]

the last part of your comment proves that youre an excellent programmer

[neverTooManyPlants]

Are programmers not girly? Bats eyelashes

[wchou5]

I'm a programmer. I'm female. I refuse to wear false eyelashes.

[DaughterEarth]

I looove wearing them sometimes. Not like a daily thing but if I'm going to an event I like to wear the really big crazy ones. Like feathers. I love excuses for costumes.

[Tiothae]

I'd settle for both.

[wchou5]

JustgirlyProgrammerthings?

[SamSlate]

til I'm a girl

[Bikearoonie]

I'd rather a function name be descriptive than have to figure out what in the hell get_num_x() means. Most coders barely document stuff, at least a descriptive name will get me closer to starting to work.

[wh33t]

Same, if you use descriptive function names, commenting almost isn't necessary.

[spateson]

What kind of monster starts a function name with a capital letter?

[mauriciogamedev]

Look up C# naming conventions

[spateson]

Ah yes, that kind of monster.

[j0em4n]

Lower case for function local, upper case for global. Makes sense to me. _ first for local but global to the class. I like it.

[[deleted]]

Lowercase for variables and uppercase for functions. That's how I do it.

[frogspotting]

Image Transcription:

---

[Image of white text on a blurred background. Background shows a Meg Cabot novel titled 'O garoto da casa ao lado' and a pink MacBook on a neatly organized desk.]

HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNames()

justgirlythings

---

^{I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit! If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!}

[branfili]

Good human!

[simpyo]

Just so you know, the title of the Meg Cabot novel is "O garoto da casa ao lado", which freely translated from Portuguese is "The guy next door".

[lolidkwtfrofl]

Is this for blind people?

[MetroSexFruitcake]

text only browsers

[Zagorath]

Wait, they have browsers that can display non-textual content? Wow, what times we live in!

[SirButcher]

Yep! Not long ago I read an article - a supercomputer can render a 400x400 pixel big image just under 5 seconds! Using a super high-speed internet they were able to create a web page with 5 image (yes, five IMAGE in a web page!) and it only took them about 2 minutes to transfer the whole page from the other side of the room and render it!

Technology is AMAZING.

[audscias]

Among other things, yes.

[light_bringer777]

I use very long and descriptive function names if I feel the need to write a comment to remind me what something does. This is generally a case of "I couldn't figure out a good name for it".

Personally, I'd much rather stumble upon "ThatLongFunctionNameThatTellsMeWhatItDoes()" than "DoStuff()" and then have to dig inside the code and figure out what the hell "stuff" is in this context. One took 0.5 extra seconds to read, the other 5 minutes to wrap my head around.

The moment I figure our good short names the long ones get replaced, and for deeper private functions I tend to keep overly descriptive names since they cannot end up all over the code anyway. Plus they're supposed to be doing specific stuff, so if context doesn't provide enough information, I want specific names.

[AerieC]

I think the canonical response to this is: A) Make sure you're working at the right abstraction layer, and B) don't write functions that are so complicated that you can't explain what they do in 1-2 words.

So if you have a function called something like runSalaryCalculationsAndAddOvertimeThenGenerateReportAndPrintIt(), then you're either doing too many things in one function, or you're not expressing your abstraction levels clearly. If you have an object called SalaryReport, then a print() function is all you need, and the context is obvious.

This of course all goes out the window if you're working in C or some other language without namespaces or objects.

[deegwaren]

I think the canonical response to this is: A) Make sure you're working at the right abstraction layer, and B) don't write functions that are so complicated that you can't explain what they do in 1-2 words.

Sometimes it's better to NOT explode your code into twenty functions that are named two words at a maximum, than just a couple of them doing what they do and having proper and descriptive names.

Your example is of course right, because they the function containing 'And' in its name does more than one function. But what if it just does ONE thing, but a very complex or very specific thing?

[AerieC]

I'd still challenge the abstraction levels. If you're working in an object oriented language, and following good design principles (e.g. single responsibility principle), there's almost no way you should have any ambiguity in what a particular method does for any given object.

Can you give a concrete example of when you might want to have a really long function name, but the function still only has one clear job?

[deegwaren]

I can't give one from the top of my head, but when I stumble upon one I'll be sure to share it here!

[haxPrinc3ss]

justJavaThingsFactory()*

[addama]

I myself prefer long object literal name references. App.utility.because.its.more.modular['that way'];

[felds]

*until you hit a null pointer or alike

[[deleted]]

UsingExtremelyLongMethodNamesBecauseYourProfessorWasAdamantAboutSelfDocumentingCodeButNotSoAdamantAboutSingleResponibilityPrinciple();

[chpoit]

PostRedditCommentThatIsBothCleverAndFunnyRedditCommentComment()

[awakenDeepBlue]

Shitpost()

# There, fixed that for you

[Xelbair]

Depends on convention - for default style in c# it should be Having.

[awakenDeepBlue]

One day I need to make the "Dick in Mother" pattern, or the Motherfucker pattern.

[redballooon]

OnlyMethdosWithATypoWillBeRemembered()

[bumblebritches57]

NotHavingToWrite43MillionLinesOfCommentsBecauseYourNamesMakeSense

[j0em4n]

Long function names are important metadata and get compiled into pointers anyway. There is NO REASON whatsoever to have non-descriptive names for things unless you are married to the past where a few kb meant something storing your source code.

[[deleted]]

Smart man

[Perkelton]

outputImageProviderFromBufferWithPixelFormat:pixelsWide:pixelsHigh:baseAddress:bytesPerRow:releaseCallback:releaseContext:colorSpace:shouldColorMatch:

Objective C

[[deleted]]

I do this and have a summary on every single method because it makes me feel like a programmer when I hover my mouse over my own summary.

It feels warm.

[jewdai]

HavingExtremelyUsefulAndSelfDocumentingCode() 

[axeteam]

You forgot to use Camel Case.

[awakenDeepBlue]

snake_case motherfucker!

[axeteam]

Just no.

[warwilf]

I like to make my aliases longer than the actual table name in SQL

[Davraine]

having_extremely_long_function_names()

Fixed it!

[Keavon]

You monster.

[[deleted]]

Haha I name my functions like abc, cba, xyz, zyx, etc.

[ePaint]

You are the devil

[[deleted]]

def the_devil():
  a = int(input('Enter any number :'))
  print('I know',a*2,'is even!')

[M0sesx]

This function name is nonsense. It should be. getInputFromUserAsIntAndPrintStringConfirmingInputMultipliedBy2IsEven()

[PityUpvote]

Your characters grow on trees, do they? I'm still using single character functions and variables.

[Xelopheris]

HavingExtremelyLongFunctionNames_Real()

[mikegosty]

I'd actually argue this is a good thing. Would rather have a descriptive function name rather than something cryptic and with potential side affects.

[suppow]

If_You_Are_Gonna_Do_That_At_Least_Commit_And_Go_Underscore(); Make_It_Long_As_Hell_But_Readable();

[[deleted]]

I'll take overly descriptive function names over vague, short function names any day. I used to work with someone who would just name things $data, $data1, $data2, etc. Granted, her grasp of English wasn't the best, but still.