Re: Object epiphany: A new way of building widget applications

[JD Smith <jdsmith(at)astro.cornell.edu>]

Martin Schultz wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>    With almost a week delay, I finally get around to release the first
> version of a new class of IDL objects: the MGS_GUIObject hierarchy.

I think it only fair to let people know that I tend to shy away from
distributed code with people's initials in the name.  I know, it sounds
stupid, but I'm not sure I'm the only one.  It seems to be a reasonably
common practice here (Craig, you listening?), but one which I think
might be best to avoid, for the following reasons:

1.  It conveys a sense of ownership or heavy expectations that are
perhaps unjustified, and not intended.  (Can I *change* such a routine,
should I feel guilty, etc...).

2.  It takes up space in a name which could perfectly well have been
used for more descriptive characters.

3.  If the routine/class/function/widget name following, e.g., JDS, is
so ambiguous as to require the initials to discriminate it from another
of the same name, either the routine/class/function/widget isn't that
useful, or its name is entirely too inspecific.  And the way I think
about it, since IDL doesn't do any shadow checking (but cf. idlwave!),
the *best* routine with a given generic name will rise to the top.

4.  The author(s) can always be found in a proper documentation header.


That's just my feeling on it.  Anyone else have an opinion?  I could
suggest lots of descriptive names for this class.  SuperGUI? 
GUIMaster?  WidgetMaster?  GUIBuilder? (no pun intended, RSI)...


JD