Maxi Contieri

Posted on Apr 2, 2021 • Updated on Apr 9, 2022 • Originally published at maximilianocontieri.com

Code Smell 65 - Variables Named After Types

#codenewbie #codesmells #oop #webdev

Names should always indicate role.

Problems

Declarative
Design for Change
Coupling to accidental implementation

Solutions

Rename your variable according to the role.

Sample Code

Wrong

Right

Detection

This is a semantic rule. We can instruct our linters to warn us from using names related to existing classes, types o reserved words since they are too implementative.

Conclusion

The first name we can across is related to an accidental point of view. It takes time to build a theory on the models we are building using our MAPPERS. Once we get there, we must rename our variables-

Relations

Code Smell 38 - Abstract Names

Maxi Contieri ・ Nov 30 '20

#oop #codenewbie #naming #webdev

More info

What exactly is a name? — Part I: The Quest

Maxi Contieri ・ Feb 9 '21

#codenewbie #tutorial #webdev #oop

XUnitPatterns

Credits

Photo by Sangga Rima Roman Selia on Unsplash

This idea came from this tweet

Types are essentially assertions about a program. And I think it’s valuable to have things be as absolutely simple as possible, including not even saying what the types are.

Dan Ingalls

Top comments (1)

Mihail Malo • Apr 2 '21 • Edited

Well, I mean... regex is the type. I get that this code won't confuse anyone, but it's as type-named as string or bytes or num and as uninformative as data or object.

public bool verifyPasswordFormat(string password) {
  // 2-7 lowercase chars, then 3-4 digits
  return new Regex(@"[a-z]{2,7}[1-9]{3,4}").IsMatch(password);
}

the above is probably ideal in terms of readability, but if you have to for example hoist the Regex in a particular language to avoid recompilation, would this be a close second?

static Regex has3To7LowercaseCharsFollowedBy3or4Numbers = new Regex(@"[a-z]{2,7}[1-9]{3,4}");
public bool verifyPasswordFormat(string password) {
  return has3To7LowercaseCharsFollowedBy3or4Numbers.IsMatch(password);
}

Some will say yes, because "it's good to declare things that do one job, and will be replaced rather than modified".

But personally, I'd end up with

// 2-7 lowercase chars, then 3-4 digits
static Regex passwordRegex = new Regex(@"[a-z]{2,7}[1-9]{3,4}");
public bool verifyPasswordFormat(string password) {
  return passwordRegex.IsMatch(password);
}

Yes, it has a type in its name. But in a wider scope like that it might be a boon and not a sin, as that still reflects its "role" in the code, and is not an implementation detail of how the role is accomplished. You could replace that with "Pattern" but I think that's purely harmful.

And of course I renamed the function.

DEV Community