Re: Check for redundancy

[Emanuel Berg]

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> AFAIR (yes, I'm an old fart) Hungarian notation was
> introduced at Microsoft (by Charles Simonyi, no
> less) because their C compiler was abysmal at
> type checking.

There is some material on it in this book:

    @book{programmers-at-work,
      title      = {Programmers at Work},
      author     = {Susan Lammers},
      publisher  = {Tempus Books},
      year       = 1989,
      ISBN       = 1556152116
    }

> Yes, the API sucked too. Possibly it still sucks
> (since times Windows 3.1 I haven't had to look at
> it, thanfully)

Yeah, I suspect it is (was) there for some reason.
It has to be real bad for it to help tho :) Here is
the Wikipedia article [1] - especially read the
"Notable opinions" section!

The best one:

  * Linus Torvalds:

        Encoding the type of a function into the name
        (so-called Hungarian notation) is brain
        damaged — the compiler knows the types anyway
        and can check those, and it only confuses
        the programmer.

The second-best one:

  * Bjarne Stroustrup:

        ... I don't recommend 'Hungarian'. I regard
        'Hungarian' (embedding an abbreviated version
        of a type in a variable name) a technique that
        can be useful in untyped languages, but is
        completely unsuitable for a language that
        supports generic programming and
        object-oriented programming — both of which
        emphasize selection of operations based on the
        type and arguments (known to the language or
        to the run-time support). In this case,
        'building the type of an object into names'
        simply complicates and minimizes abstraction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_notation

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573