Short "general" views naming vs long precise views naming....

[Cableguy]

So...

Here I am again making noise....
I know this has been addressed before, but it's been awhile....

What do you guys prefer to use?

Option 1 : Short General Names, Like "label1", "Panel22", etc ... no reference table
Option 2 : Same as above but with a table for reference, like "label1 - The Name of the game"
Option 3 : Long specific naming, like "the_name_of_the_game_label"

So, a poll hey??

 

[LucaMs]

Not to mention that I'm an excellent typist, I write with 20 fingers ? ...

Short names were useful (or necessary) decades ago, when there were memory problems (even for sources) and there was no editor support (with B4X, I write "MyVar" and the next time just write M to get the MyVar text, by a TAB).

Generic names NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER. Almost never short names, just very rare cases.

 

[Alexander Stolte]

Option4 : xlbl_yourname, xpnl_yourname, xbtn_yourname

 

[LucaMs]

Option4 : xlbl_yourname, xpnl_yourname, xbtn_yourname

exactly how I use them (almost, without underscore: xlblName, xpnlName, xclvName, ...)

 

[Alexander Stolte]

exactly how I use them (almost, without underscore: xlblName, xpnlName, xclvName, ...)

my senior dev. do the same
must be the age.
Fun, your variant looks more legible, but one gets used to certain things.

I have already had to fight with my inner when I have to write with SQL instead of abbreviations, the full table name before the name...

 

[LucaMs]

my senior dev. do the same
must be the age.

Old school which has its important motives. Obviously your boss is almost as smart as I am ?

I have already had to fight with my inner when I have to write with SQL instead of abbreviations, the full table name before the name..

Never, again.

Product (table name, singular)
ID
Name
Price
...

 

[EnriqueGonzalez]

Began witth the first option to code, but after learning other languages and practices i am slowly migrating to the third option. Readability its key for team coding

 

[Alexander Stolte]

Never, again.

Product (table name, singular)
ID
Name
Price
...

Me:
Product
p_id
p_name
p_price
As it must do:
Product
Product_Id
Product_Name
Product_Price
Grrr, the argument: CTRL + C -> CTRL + V

 

[LucaMs]

Me:
Product
p_id
p_name
p_price
As it must do:
Product
Product_Id
Product_Name
Product_Price
Grrr, the argument: CTRL + C -> CTRL + V

Why all those "p_" and "Product"? Since the table name is Product, "name", "price", "id" and the rest of the fields are of course of product, no need to specify them.

 

[Alexander Stolte]

Why all those "p_" and "Product"? Since the table name is Product, "name", "price", "id" and the rest of the fields are of course of product, no need to specify them.

so that with complex queries you can see directly from which table the column comes. You often have foreign key relationships because you have columns in your table from other tables, which are then linked.

Example:
Table: Users
u_id
u_name

Table: Messages
m_id
m_message
u_id

Table Users are connected with table messages via the User Id.
According to your syntax it would be in the table "Messages" then 2 times the name "ID", which does not work

 

[LucaMs]

O.T. sorry, but...

"Name" as field name cannot be used in MS Access (because it's a keyword! )

 

[Alexander Stolte]

"Name" as field name cannot be used in MS Access (because it's a keyword! )

that's why you have the table name in front of it...

 

[LucaMs]

that's why you have the table name in front of it...

I don't like it, anyway.

 

[Alexander Stolte]

I don't like it, anyway.

Now you know how I feel when my senior dev comes around the corner with his things

 

[cklester]

so that with complex queries you can see directly from which table the column comes. You often have foreign key relationships because you have columns in your table from other tables, which are then linked.

Like Luca, I generally don't use prefixes in my field names. For your sample case, I would do this:

Table: Users
id
name

Table: Messages
id
message
user_id

If there are ever any conflicts in my foreign key queries, I just use "As".

 

[EnriqueGonzalez]

Example:
Table: Users
u_id
u_name

Table: Messages
m_id
m_message
u_id

i do not like it, because it is redundant.

table users
id
name

table messages
id
user_id
text

select u.id
          ,  u.name
          , m.text
FROM Messages as m
INNER JOIN users as u on m.user_id = u.id

i dont polute my tables with extra redundant information and my queries still look readable and beautiful!

 

[cklester]

select u.id
          ,  u.name
          , m.text
FROM Messages as m
INNER JOIN users as u on m.user_id = u.id

...my queries still look readable and beautiful!

Yep! That's how I do it.

 

[klaus]

I use option 5 like LucaMS.
xlblFirstName, xlblLastName etc.
For sure it is because of the age as Alexander Stolte wrote in post #5.

 

[Cableguy]

Option4 : xlbl_yourname, xpnl_yourname, xbtn_yourname

This kind of naming, to me, falls into the 3rd option as it is a more specific naming, even if not too long

 

[AnandGupta]

I agree with klaus and Alexander Stolte as I use same technique.
<variable type><used as>
lblAge, dToday, nAmount

This helps me to understand the variable at a glance.