Pellentesque nec neque ex. Aliquam at quam vitae lacus convallis pulvinar. Mauris vitae ullamcorper lacus. Cras nisi dui, faucibus non dolor quis, volutpat euismod massa. Donec et pulvinar erat.
It's pronounced Diane. I do data architecture, operations, and backend development. In my spare time I maintain Massive.js, a data mapper for Node.js and PostgreSQL.
What are those reasons? I find is_* clear for boolean fields since it makes it easy to identify them as answering a yes-or-no question, and where naming things isn't about clarity it's really down to taste.
Pellentesque nec neque ex. Aliquam at quam vitae lacus convallis pulvinar. Mauris vitae ullamcorper lacus. Cras nisi dui, faucibus non dolor quis, volutpat euismod massa. Donec et pulvinar erat.
The word is is redundant.
User.active = true
Why would you add it? You can tell that it is yes/no by the field/property type being Boolean. It's like putting 'equals' in your property name.
It's pronounced Diane. I do data architecture, operations, and backend development. In my spare time I maintain Massive.js, a data mapper for Node.js and PostgreSQL.
It's not always obvious that something is a boolean unless you're looking at a table or class definition. Redundancy isn't universally evil: here it means you don't have to look up the type if you're just looking at usage.
I would like to suggest that in stead of is_active, you call this property of user just active. (Boolean) this is more correct for many reasons.
What are those reasons? I find
is_*clear for boolean fields since it makes it easy to identify them as answering a yes-or-no question, and where naming things isn't about clarity it's really down to taste.The word is is redundant.
User.active = true
Why would you add it? You can tell that it is yes/no by the field/property type being Boolean. It's like putting 'equals' in your property name.
It's not always obvious that something is a boolean unless you're looking at a table or class definition. Redundancy isn't universally evil: here it means you don't have to look up the type if you're just looking at usage.
thanks for your thoughts. I'll have to look at the naming conventions.