Re: Naming Conventions?

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:05:55 +0200
Message-ID: <462f6da2$0$336$>

paul c wrote:
> mAsterdam wrote:

>> Karen Hill wrote:
>>> What do you believe is the best naming convention for tables, columns,
>>> schemas and why?
>> Sadly, names do not matter to much to structuralists like paulc and BB 
>> (I'm sure paulc won't mind :-).

> Heh, don't mind at all. I fancy structuralism covers all the ground
> it's possible to talk about formally.

You are not alone. This way, formalism is a sort of safe haven. So, how to maturely discuss anything beyond structure? The purpose of structure is to support substance.

> I grew up with IBM utility names made out of un-pronouncable dipthongs
> and had my own private names for them, such as pteradactyl.

Was that IEBGENER?

> Some
> co-workers got used to this and started doing the same. This seemed to
> increase our confidence that we understood each other, if not the
> systems we used. Knew another programmer who liked labels such as
> "there", "here" and shades of OO, "this". Eventually got used to that too.
> I can enjoy a bit of mysticism as much as the next person, until it
> turns earnest!

Most technologies come with a bit of folklore. Hello World! Received on Wed Apr 25 2007 - 17:05:55 CEST

Original text of this message