RE: procedure parameter names

Well said.

-----Original Message-----
From: rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:rpg400-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Larry Ducie
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:23 PM
To: RPG400
Subject: RE: procedure parameter names


Hi Dennis,

<snip>
I don't know the problem environment, so my response is limited. I will

say, though, that adherence to some set naming convention is not only
wise;

it is in many cases a requirement of the position. In some cases, that
is

an unfortunate requirement but it's better than the job-seeking
alternative!

</snip>

The key to change is to influence from within. If a naming convention does not work then you "should" seek to change it. If it makes you less productive you "should" petition the person(s) responsible for an appropriate change. It is the responsibility of all developers to keep the standards alive.

Some naming conventions exist because they are just that - conventions. The OP has a prime example - they have parameters with names beginning with the letter 'A' but nobody knows why. Yet they continue the practice. That seems ludicrous. It is more tradition than convention.

While I agree that naming conventions are important - they absolutely must be useful and relevant. If they are not then they are simply that thing "we have always done". That may be good when changing the guard at Buckingham Palace, or swearing in a new President, but in IT traditionalists are not particularly in demand. We constantly adapt to new technologies and paradigms. If our standards and methodologies do not evolve with our capabilities they become stale, irrelevant, and ultimately restrictive. That is not good and should never be allowed to happen if you want to continue to effectively support the growth of your business.

Cheers

Larry Ducie

_________________________________________________________________
If It Exists, You'll Find it on SEEK. Australia's #1 job site
http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/