This is a mobile version, full one is here.
12 January 2015
A Compound Name Is a Code Smell
Do you name variables like
All three are compound names that consist of more than one word. Even though
they look more descriptive than
The scope of a variable is the place where it is visible, like a method, for example. Look at this Ruby class:
class CSV def initialize(csvFileName) @fileName = csvFileName end def readRecords() File.readLines(@fileName).map |csvLine| csvLine.split(',') end end end
The visible scope of variable
csvFileName is method
is a constructor of the class
CSV. Why does it need a compound name
that consists of three words? Isn't it already clear that a single-argument
constructor of class
CSV expects the name of a file with
comma-separated values? I would rename it to
Next, the scope of
@fileName is the entire
CSV class. Renaming a single
variable in the class to just
@file won't introduce
any confusion. It's still clear what file we're dealing with.
The same situation exists with the
csvLine variable. It is clear that we're
dealing with CSV lines here. The
csv prefix is just a redundancy.
Here is how I would refactor the class:
class CSV def initialize(file) @file = file end def records() File.readLines(@file).map |line| line.split(',') end end end
Now it looks clear and concise.
If you can't perform such a refactoring, it means your scope is too big and/or too complex. An ideal method should deal with up to five variables, and an ideal class should encapsulate up to five properties.
If we have five variables, can't we find five nouns to name them?
Adam and Eve didn't have second names. They were unique in Eden, as were many other characters in the Old Testament. Second and middle names were invented later in order to resolve ambiguity. To keep your methods and classes clean and solid, and to prevent ambiguity, try to give your variables and methods unique single-word names, just like Adam and Eve were named by you know who :)
PS. Also, redundant variables are evil as well.