Jump to content

Talk:Coding conventions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language

[edit]

This Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language document contains the standard conventions that we at Sun follow and recommend that others follow. It covers filenames, file organization, indentation, comments, declarations, statements, white space, naming conventions, programming practices and includes a code example. Why have code conventions? Code conventions are important to programmers for a number of reasons: 

   * 80% of the lifetime cost of a piece of software goes to maintenance.
   * Hardly any software is maintained for its whole life by the original author.
   * Code conventions improve the readability of the software, allowing engineers to understand new code more quickly and thoroughly.

The Code Conventions for the Java Programming Language document was revised and updated on April 20, 1999. [1]

One class per file is not necessary true. In Jave or C#, sometimes there is a need to declare private classes which have to share source files with some other public classes.G7shihao (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this comment is from 2009. Meanwhile, several up-to-date Java-conventions are added to main article. Closing this comment is unspecific and has not seen further responses. If I missed anything, please re-open. KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trailing commas

[edit]

Trailing commas redirect here, but the article does not mention them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.75.7 (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not need to mention it specifically. TCs are part of coding guides, e. g. https://rules.sonarsource.com/c/RSPEC-878 KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Programming style

[edit]

This article overlaps with Programming style and Coding standards and has no proper link to de:Programmierstil. I dare not change it, because I cannot decide which of the two articles could go to orcus or if both could get a clear different lemma.--Brf (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks messy yes. Programming style completely lacks references, which is inacceptable IMO. It was created 2003. Coding conventions was created 2006 and looks rather list-style. I think this. The best parts of Programming style should be merged into Coding conventions, into a sub-section "Style" or so WITH fresh referencing. Shocking that nobody answered this comment before or shows interest. If I find time, I come back to this. BR 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring coding conventions and programming style articles

[edit]

Below are my proposals for some bigger (but straight-forward) changes to the below indicated 3 articles. Feel free to comment them. It is Nov-5-2010 now, I will not start execution before some week(s) have passed by. Proposals for smaller changes/merges to the (currently) 3 involved articles, I have not looked into yet. Also here, any proposals/comments are welcome. Thanks, Ptrb (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, correct, both pages need merging and updating. See my comment above (Section Programming style). I close this comment which looks like a duplicated-call for action. KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 0

[edit]

As a general direction for the refactoring of the following arcicles. I suggest to work towards the given focus for each of them.

  1. Coding conventions — Have this as the leading article on this topic
  2. Programming style — Limit this to style (read: layout, formatting) only, move other content to respective articles
    1. Need to double check, if there are other articles on layout, formatting, that would need to be involved in these considerations
  3. Naming convention (programming) — Limit to naming conventions, move all naming convention specific to here, and point to this article from the other articles

Ptrb (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE , Ptrb (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

[edit]

The content provided here Programming_style#Appropriate_variable_names is more or less equivalent to the content provided here Naming_convention_(programming)#Business_value and here Naming_convention_(programming)#Length_of_identifiers. I suggest to

  1. delete the "get a b c" vs. "get hours minutes seconds" example here Programming_style#Appropriate_variable_names , and to stick to Naming_convention_(programming)#Business_value
  2. consider to migrate the statement on "In early programming languages" from Programming_style#Appropriate_variable_names to here Naming_convention_(programming)#Length_of_identifiers

Ptrb (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE , Ptrb (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

[edit]

Move this section Coding_conventions#Common_conventions (which is only dealing with naming issues) to this article Naming convention (programming), and to turn it into a level 1 section called "Examples" (or so). The following leftovers would stay in Coding_conventions#Common_conventions for now:

  1. No more than 80 characters, including white space, should be in one line.
  2. Only one statement should be on each line.
  3. An extra character should go early in a comment block to delimit the beginning of externally published or processed documentation.

Ptrb (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE , Ptrb (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3

[edit]

Move complete following sections from Programming style to Coding conventions

  1. Programming_style#External_links
  2. Programming_style#Coding_conventions_for_languages
  3. Programming_style#Coding_conventions_for_projects

Ptrb (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE, Ptrb (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4

[edit]

Next to the general article on Naming convention (programming),

Currently (Nov-5-2010) located articles are:

Ptrb (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 5

[edit]
DONE, Ptrb (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 6

[edit]
DONE, Ptrb (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring coding conventions and programming style articles - Summary of preparations and changes made

[edit]

In case you should be watching this, please just give me some time to write down my concerns and suggestions.

  1. Changed redirect on Coding standard to point to Coding conventions — Ptrb (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Changed redirect on Coding standards to point to Coding conventions — Ptrb (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Changed redirect on Code convention to point to Coding conventions — Ptrb (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  4. Changed redirect on Code conventions to point to Coding conventions — Ptrb (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  5. On Programming style Added merge-to codes for Coding conventions and Naming convention (programming) — Ptrb (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  6. On Coding conventions Added merge-to code Naming convention (programming) — Ptrb (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  7. On Coding conventions Added merge-from code Programming style — Ptrb (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  8. On Naming convention (programming) Added merge-from codes for Coding conventions and Programming style — Ptrb (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  9. Added proposal section Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_0 — Ptrb (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Added proposal section Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_1 — Ptrb (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Added proposal section Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_2 — Ptrb (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Added proposal section Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_3 — Ptrb (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. At Naming convention (programming), in "See also" section, add explicit pointer to Category:Naming conventions — Ptrb (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Executed/DONE Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_1 — Ptrb (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Executed/DONE Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_2 — Ptrb (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Executed/DONE Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_3 — Ptrb (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Added Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_5 — Ptrb (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Added Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_6 — Ptrb (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Executed/DONE Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_5 — Ptrb (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Executed/DONE Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_6 — Ptrb (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Executed/DONE Talk:Coding_conventions#Proposal_0 — Ptrb (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningfulness and Consistency

[edit]

"If a for loop uses just a letter 'i' for the index this is not very meaningful . If , however , the word 'index' is used this is much more meaningful ."

They way I've always been taught is to use 'i' as an index. It's a pretty standard convention (as well as using j, k etc. for subsequent nested loops) and most people who see 'i = 0' in a line of code instantly associate it with an forthcoming loop.

Using 'index' could be considered verbose.

41.133.164.39 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Dieter[reply]


Meaningful Names?

[edit]

Where do these "meaningful names" come from?

Any thoughts, rules, practices, do's, don'ts on "meaningful names?" DEddy (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, searching article for "Meaningful names" finds 0 results. What do you mean? I close this, your comment wasn't answered for a while. Please open again if needed. KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name should describe the data in terms the user of the application can understand. For example ‘sample_size” or “median_age” instead of something like ”x”, “ss”, or “med.” Other than that there are a lot of thoughts on what the form of a name should be, for example “pszCustomerName” is Hungarian Notation for a pointer (p) to a null-terminated string (sz) containing a customer name. Peter Flass (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The reference one lead to a page with broken llnk only, it should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.65.6 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help and update it. Your comment is from 2014, this is too old. Ref 1 is currently working. BR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coding conventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coding conventions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coding_conventions&oldid=1201006049"