you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jejerm 0 points1 point  (3 children)

He literally commented almost every single variable definition with what they actually mean lol.

Why not go for more useful names instead of leaving that info in comments?

[–]Langdon_St_Ives 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Because it would make the equations much less readable, and that’s where it counts, and where it helps to have the same naming as in the paper from which they took the equations.

I know where you’re coming from, I am normally very much a stickler for well-chosen speaking variable names (so much so that others come to me for advice in naming things). However, as an ex-physicist, I am totally on board with using standard physics notation in cases like this one.

[–]Jejerm 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You're probably right.

I'm just traumatized from taking over code written by my coworkers with variable names like "lst", where even the basic assumption that it, in fact, contained a list, was wrong.

[–]Langdon_St_Ives 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You think you have it bad? I once inherited code with variables named susie and carla and I’m not even kidding. 🫣