I completely disagree. There is no trivial code. For loops especially need to have clear variable naming. Iterating over i, j, may be a common practice but it does not make it less awful. It has to absolutely clear what data is processed inside a method. Are you sure you even know what to expect if you can't name it?
Yes, "traditional" for-loops work that way... My opinion stems from mainly using languages that have an iterator-based for-loop where the "i" is not the index, but an item.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I completely agree!
For trivial pieces of code like for loops or even a function that just prints out an array, variable names aren't so important.
Naming conventions become more and more important once you start writing code that can't be trivially understood.
I completely disagree. There is no trivial code. For loops especially need to have clear variable naming. Iterating over i, j, may be a common practice but it does not make it less awful. It has to absolutely clear what data is processed inside a method. Are you sure you even know what to expect if you can't name it?
Of course, for loops by definition point to an 'index' (hence the initial i), and that index is going to be called on a clear named variable.
Yes, "traditional" for-loops work that way... My opinion stems from mainly using languages that have an iterator-based for-loop where the "i" is not the index, but an item.