79

We've been getting a rash of questions asking, essentially, what a programmer should name methods or properties. One such was a request for a word that meant both "add" and "remove" because the programmer wanted to have a method that could add or remove an element.

Does this really fall under ELU? The English language doesn't really govern what people can or do call class members and the like. This sort of thing seems more about naming conventions, and in that case I think Programmers.SE would be the more logical choice.

Thoughts?

| |
  • 8
    The thing is, Programmers does not (or no longer does) welcome bikeshed questions, either. See Mark Trapp's comment here, for example: "bikeshedding class names is not welcome on Programmers.SE". (Mark is a mod there.) So the question boils down to, are they welcome on our site? – RegDwigнt♦ May 5 '11 at 16:02
  • 3
    @RegDwight: Well, I'm fine with your reduction. I don't think they belong here. – Robusto May 5 '11 at 16:06
  • 35
    +1 just for the title...:) – Marthaª May 6 '11 at 15:55
  • 10
    I don't have anything better than the two answers, and I concur: this stuff does not belong here. – Jeff Atwood May 6 '11 at 23:46
  • 15
    For those who were as baffled by this use of bikeshed as I was, by the way: explanation. Roughly, bikeshedding = obsessing argumentatively over trivial details just because you can. – PLL May 7 '11 at 21:12
  • 13
    I don't understand the title of this question at all. So much so that I wasted my time asking a question that got merged into this one. And wasted Jeff Atwood's time actually performing the merge. The daft thing is I've noticed this question several times. The actual matter being discussed would never have occured to me from the title alone. – FumbleFingers May 8 '11 at 22:28
  • 4
    Putting aside my rant against a pointlessly (not very) amusing question title, I think that 'internal' identifiers in program code are way off-topic for EL&U. I don't particularly object to requests for help identifying suitable 'display' text, but I'd rather not see too many of them. – FumbleFingers May 8 '11 at 22:32
  • 5
    @Robusto: To which I would add the caveat that the title of this particular question seems exceptionally bad to me. I notice some moderators seem to have time to make minor stylistic changes to other question titles in the interests of site consistency. So why does no-one think it's worth revising this one so it at least nods in the direction of its topic? – FumbleFingers May 9 '11 at 1:23
  • 12
    @FumbleFingers: I don't think anyone else misunderstood the title or felt confusion or distress from it. If they did, a reading of the first sentence was sufficient to put them on the right track. I actually think the quirky title attracted more readership and hence more attention to the topic than a pedestrian title would have. – Robusto May 9 '11 at 3:34
  • 7
    @FumbleFingers: the title does, in fact, indicate the subject of the question: it's a play on the two meanings of python, only the second of which -- the one that's planning to eat Robusto's dog -- is on-topic for this site. – Marthaª May 9 '11 at 22:34
  • 11
    are the arguments over the title a form of bikeshedding? hahaha – Paul Amerigo Pajo May 10 '11 at 0:26
  • 6
    @FumbleFingers: I opened the question mostly because of the title. As the question was posted on this site I assumed there was a very slim chance it was about the Python programming language (which, by the way, gets its name from Monty Python) and I proceeded to see what it was about. And, come on, it doesn't look to me so far fetched that the fact that a python could eat Robusto's dog was just a pun. That said, a pun is the lowest form of humor, unless you thought of it yourself so... (still I find this humorous). – nico May 11 '11 at 5:00
  • 5
    @nico: I think I'm not very good at conveying tone in my online posts, but let me assure you I'm not sitting here spitting blood and stamping my foot in rage. I have great respect for Robusto, who regularly makes informative and authoritative posts with a deft combination of wit and consideration. I didn't like this title, not really because I didn't get the joke originally, but because it didn't convey (to me, at least) what the Question was really about. So I never even read the question itself, despite it being of great potential interest to me. – FumbleFingers May 11 '11 at 13:32
  • 4
    I agree with Fumble about the jocular question title. I just don't believe most people will understand the title until they've read the question. That's fine for a blog entry or whatever but as a SE question it is inviting duplication. meta.english.stackexchange.com/questions/549/… – z7sg Ѫ May 16 '11 at 7:49
  • 4
    @Fumble: you're not the only one who doesn't get the title. It's totally unclear to me to, and it's annoying. Sure I can get the topic of this post from its first line, but if I have to do that for every post, then scanning a list of posts is impossible. That's the purpose of a title: to summarize the topic. A title that obfuscates the topic of a post is a bad title. (I didn't find it funny either. Even though I'm a python programmer.) – LarsH May 25 '11 at 4:26
48

I don't mind questions of the form "What words work in this context?" "Is there a word that can be used for both add and remove (i.e. from a set)?" seems perfectly fine. What bugs me is that they don't mention programming until after answers come back that don't work in a programming context. Then an edit goes through and everyone gets to update their answers.

Not only that, a programming-only context is uninteresting and it irks the programmer in me when someone starts asking for a method name that breaks convention; at this point the name is irrelevant. You are probably doing it wrong.

Therefore, my opinion is that programming specific contexts are out of the scope of this site and should be closed as Too Narrow. If you word the question with an open context you don't get to complain about the valid English words not fitting into your program. As a programmer, you can figure that out on your own. We are here to discuss English.

| |
  • 4
    It bugs you that they don't (initially) mention programming, but it also bugs you when they do mention programming? – Charles May 6 '11 at 5:53
  • 6
    @Charles: Yes. In both cases they mention programming; in one case they rudely wait until after people have answered. If they never mentioned it at all it would be better. – MrHen May 6 '11 at 13:05
  • 7
    I would prefer, in general, to have people mention their application since it might be relevant to the answers. To use your example: "Is there a word that can be used for both add and remove (from a set)? I looked up ... in a thesaurus and found ... but none seemed quite right. Sidenote: I'm hoping to use this as a class name in my C++ program." – Charles May 6 '11 at 13:37
  • 3
    @Charles: Sure. I guess I don't necessarily have a problem including a mention to the context but if question only cares about programming then I consider it too narrow. I consider naming methods akin to naming books; naming children; naming companies. We aren't here to name things for people. – MrHen May 6 '11 at 14:08
  • I think we essentially agree. "(normal question)? My goal is to use this as a name or tagline for my __ company." would be OK, assuming (normal question) is what it says, but "What is a good name for my __ company" or "What should I call my child" would be bad. Similarly for programming-related questions. – Charles May 6 '11 at 14:39
  • 4
    @Charles: Agreed, with the caveat that the answers are not expected to provide only programming eligible answers. The context helps hone the options into something interesting but it shouldn't become a restriction that prevents the question from being applicable to other people. – MrHen May 6 '11 at 14:43
  • 4
    Absolutely. "Here's my question. So you know, I care only about the fooian answers, but all answers are acceptable." I've done that before (with non-programming questions) when I thought that asking for a fooian baz would be too narrow to expect answers, though surely someone could find a baz. That way if someone does know of a fooian baz they will mention it and I'll accept, but if all of the baz answers are non-fooian I'll just accept the best of them as usual. – Charles May 6 '11 at 14:54
  • 2
    I was going to write up an answer clarifying my comment about bikeshedding class names, but this is exactly the point I would make. In a programmer-only context, the question is uninteresting: who cares what you name your symbols? Because of this, any question on Programmers.SE about naming would invariably lead to bike-shedding. But if someone's asking about why X English word is used in Y context, that seems like a valid EL&U question even if the intent is to name a symbol. – user2512 May 7 '11 at 10:10
  • the aim of something like UML when constructing use case diagrams (UCDs), activity diagrams, class diagrams is that you could theoretically send the UCD to a person who can barely read or understand English and they would be able to program your use cases by asking a better speaker/reader of the language or even consulting the dictionary. That is a VERY PRACTICAL USE of English. Why shouldn't it be discussed here? – Paul Amerigo Pajo May 10 '11 at 0:28
  • 3
    @pageman: Programming theory is not in the scope of EL&U. Deal with it. – MrHen May 10 '11 at 1:02
13

I would think that those questions are off-topic for EL&U simply for the fact the answer can be given just from a programmer point of view, and users on EL&U are not supposed to be all programmers (even if it can happen that the majority of them are programmers at any level).

To make clear what I mean, I will report two examples:

  • What name should I use for my function, instead of IsNotArray()?
    A programmer could simply reply with (supposing the programming language has such operator) "You just need an IsArray() function; if you need to check if a variable is not an array, then you use !IsArray()." Who doesn't know anything about programming languages, it would not answer in that way, but that would be probably be the better answer that such question should get.

  • In my PHP script I added a function; should I call it str_shuffle() or str_permutation()?
    Who is not a programmer would probably say that one or the other is indifferent, or would choose one saying for which reasons s/he thinks it is better; who knows PHP will say that str_shuffle() is a function already defined from PHP, and there would be problems when using a user function called str_shuffle().

The second example makes evident that the answer for such questions depends from the programming context; even if that question would be asked on Stack Overflow, or Programmers, who answers would need to know for which programming language the question is being asked. On EL&U, that would be an irrelevant detail as a linguistic, for example, is not supposed to know anything about programming, and reporting that the question is about a Java method, or a PHP function would not help to give the correct answer as who answers is supposed to answer basing on English usage of a word, or a group of words.

Then, a compiler doesn't accept function/method/class names that follow the English grammar or usage; a compiler is happy even if the function would be called x3efdsdf(), or MangiaIlPanino().
What those questions are really asking is "which function name would help other developers to remember the purpose of a function?" To that question, only a developer is able to give a correct answer.

Finally, the fact Programmers, which is supposed to accept subjective questions about programming, doesn't accept those questions is a sign that they should not be accepted on EL&U either. They put a limit on the subjective questions they accept (and they have a good reason to do so); I don't see why those subjective questions should be accepted on EL&U, where the topic is not even programming.

| |
  • 1
    I don't think it has to be given from a programmer's point of view. If someone has a limited vocabulary and explain their situation properly, words will come. I have a an example of my own: english.stackexchange.com/questions/23680/…. I don't think that you have to be a programmer to answer to these simple questions. – whirlwin May 7 '11 at 20:58
  • 1
    @Whirlwin Since you are not asking for a function name, the question is different. If you are asking to decide which name you should give to a function, then what I reported is still valid; if the suggested name is not valid in the programming language you are using, that is not related with English grammar and usage. – kiamlaluno May 7 '11 at 21:04
-1

It may be helpful to use the guidelines here for homework questions, as applicable.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .