Software development, .Net, SQL Server, TDD, Agile, Community and other Odds and Sods
Mitch Wheat has been working as a professional programmer since 1984, graduating with a honours degree in Mathematics from Warwick University, UK in 1986. He moved to Perth in 1995, having worked in software houses in London and Rotterdam. He has worked in the areas of mining, electronics, research, defence, financial, GIS, telecommunications, engineering, and information management. Mitch has worked mainly with Microsoft technologies (since Windows version 3.0) but has also used UNIX. He holds the following Microsoft certifications: MCPD (Web and Windows) using C# and SQL Server MCITP (Admin and Developer). His preferred development environment is C#, .Net Framework and SQL Server. Mitch has worked as an independent consultant for the last 10 years, and is currently involved with helping teams improve their Software Development Life Cycle. His areas of special interest lie in performance tuning
Sunday, June 18, 2006
‘I’ is for…Interface
Roy Osherove has posted an excellent blog entry Interface Naming - Anything But Java's Standard, Please, on his thoughts on the use of ‘I’ for interfaces. I agree with Roy that using ‘I’ to prefix interfaces is a good idea because it makes code clearer. This is in line with the .Net Framework Design Guidelines by Brad Abrams and Krzysztof Cwalina. You should name interfaces to describe the behaviours they bestow on the implementing class, for example, IPersistable.
I personally believe that the ultimate aim of a programmer is to write code that reads like prose and should be clearly understandable by the reader. Any naming convention or coding standard that leads directly to more understandable code has to be a good thing.
As a young, naïve programmer writing C code over 20 years ago, I, like many others, took delight in writing convoluted, hard to understand code! Writing code with others in mind is not only more productive, but also a sign of maturity:
Any fool can write code that a computer can understand.
Good programmers write code that humans can understand. – Martin Fowler
Another interesting point that Roy mentions, is the reliance on an IDE to understand code through the use of ‘hover’ tooltips. Do you think it is inevitable that we should require tools to understand code, or should language syntax and the printed page be sufficient?
MSN, Email: mitch døt wheat at gmail.com