Re: Calendar Issue

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:23:58 -0800, Martin Gregorie <martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 11:53:31 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

The Wikipedia article has an adequate discussion:

Note among the "Notable opinions" that the "Systems" variant is the one
specifically targeted by critics, and that's not really Hungarian

Hang about: my example, puiAccountNunber (pointer to an unsigned
integer), is an exact fit with Systems Hungarian and would certainly need
its name changed if the variable was changed to a signed long.

Hang on what? Your example is indeed "Systems Hungarian", just as you say. But as I pointed out, that's not really Hungarian. Basing a poor opinion of Hungarian on "Systems Hungarian" is incorrect, since the two are not the same.

That's the whole point of my response.

I didn't know he developed it round BCPL, but that figures. I used to
know a bit of it as I translated the General Purpose Macrogenerator
(originally written in BCPL) to Algol 60.

Its origins definitely validate a comment I once heard: that the only
justification for using Systems Hungarian was that it could compensate
for deficiencies in a compiler with piss-poor type checking

It certainly can address that. But it's hardly "the only justification". As I have said more than once, Hungarian used propertly addresses _semantics_ that are invisible to the compiler. It has very little to do with type checking.

If you continue to believe so, you will continue to ignorantly say bad things about Hungarian.

If you want to educate yourself on what Hungarian really is, and _then_ say bad things about it, that seems reasonable to me. That's your prerogative and it's a core principle in an informed debate. But it doesn't make sense to say bad things about it until you actually know the Hungarian naming convention. That's just silly.