• Gentoo1337@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    I remember one GitHub project that implemented some algorithm (I think it was Dijkstra’s) but only used 4 or 5 single letter variables and just kept reusing them.

    • Dandroid@dandroid.app
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      When I was in college, I had a guy that I was working on a project with that did this constantly. At one point I looked at one of his files and the variables were named a, b, c, aa, ab, ac, ba, bb, etc. That when I was like, bro, you gotta stop doing this.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        “Inside you there are two wolves…” or something:

        Option 1: Sit down with them and go line by line through it. Make him identify each variable’s purpose and then immediately find and replace to rename every instance with a more descriptive name.

        Option 2: Small script to shuffle the variable names in his code around after each of his commits.

    • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Maybe they had a background in low-level assembly code? If you’re writing assembly that’s kinda sorta how you’d handle registers.

    • lorty@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      When you are used to math equations, it’s easy to slip into that habit.

          • Scraft161@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Length might have mattered in the 80s and 90s when IDEs were crap but we got autocomplete in pretty much all our text editors (even TUI ones like vim).

            As for readability there is an argument to be had in specific contexts, but 9 out of 10 times it makes more sense to use a proper word.

            Example:

            let list = [1, 2, 3];
            for i in list {
                println!("{}", i);
            }
            

            In this case using item in the place of i would be more fitting.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    “result” is fine. That is the variable you will end up returning that you have to fill with stuff first.

    “data” on the other hand…

    • Hal_Canary@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I came here to say this.

      Declare result in the first line of the function and return result is the last line. In C++, this is a big hint to the compiler that you want return value optimization to kick in.

  • owzim@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    As someone who uses ‘result’ as a variable name in functions all the time, please tell me what you think is wrong with it?

    If a function is called for example ‘transformAtoB’ it should be totally obvious what the variable will contain.

    • qaz@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s not necessarily bad, it just provides very little information.

  • gramie@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    It could be that this is a habit left over from pascal, where result is a reserved word, and is automatically made the return value of the function.

    If it is in the context of a short function, I don’t see that it’s all that bad.

    • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Exactly. If it’s a statically typed language and the function has a clear name? I know what type it is, I know what it’s for, I’m good.

      There are far worse sins, like intermediate variables or worse, public class members named “obj” or “data”.

      • qaz@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        GitHub doesn’t show types. So if the value is given to another function you would have no way of knowing what type it is unless you read the file that other function is declared in.