David Bergman wrote:
Peter wrote:
Powell, Gary wrote:
I'm siding with Dave A and the longer names.
You are missing most of the points, though. ;-)
You can always shorten it in your code with an alias.
This is precisely what makes it dangerous. Design mistakes that have a trivial workaround are the worst, because you will never get the feedback that will set you on the right path. Everyone just patches around it locally.
Exactly. What do certain people think is so hard with "fs"? *If* someone would not have an intuitive sense of what "fs" might mean, it should be a fairly short education...
Regarding non-native speakers, I thought we were all English speaking when it came to software engineering? I do not understand why, and how, the nativeness of this tongue would affect the comprehensibility of "fs."
I think we all agree on having telling names. I think we do disagree on whether "fs" (and similar abridged variants) are indicative as to their meaning. And, some people are dogmatically against abridged lexemes. I assume some of those people live in the United States of America, whereas I live in the U.S.
Actually if namespace identifiers in C++ could have a dot ( '.' ) in them and if it was normally acceptable to use all uppercase letters in namespace identifiers ( usually reserved for macros ), I would be more likely to agree with you. Now imagine if 'U.S.' was 'us', don't you think such a short abbreviation could cause problems in normal use, and the United States would be more understandable ?