Great article!
As a non-native speaker I am struggling with defining naming conventions based on grammar-based approach. We have a rather elaborate implementation pattern, with around 15 different types of units (like DTO, Entity, Service, Test, Test Base, Test Data, etc). In my native language (Hungarian) there is a clear distinction between not just roles of a word in a sentence, but types of word: in most cases if you look at a word out of context you can tell its type based the agglutinations it wears. (This is because the order of words in our language is loose: we do not order them based on their role in the sentence (that is apparent from their type), but based on what to be emphasized, and what is new information).
For example I know that I want names like "RegistrationService", but I have problems from that point on. In Hungarian I would use words for "Registration" which start from a verb as a stem: "regisztrál" = "register", denoting an activity. After that I would add a modifier making it a noun, and my understanding is that English stops somewhere here: "regisztrálás" = "registration", which refers to the process, and "regisztráció" = "registration", which refers to the outcome of the activity. But in Hungarian I would also add a modifier to make it an adjective, which as I understand is implicit or different or ambigous in English: "regisztrációs" ~= "registrational"; something which has to do with the process of registration, or "regisztrálási" ~= "registrational"(?); something which has to do with the outcome of the activity of registration.
Maybe my first problem here is to understand whether "registration" here is even a noun or an adjective: for me it looks like a noun, but its place in the sentence (as "the thing giving the quality of being concerned with the activity of registration to the (noun) service") begs for an adjective in my limited (and influenced by my native language) understanding of these things.
The other part is that I would like to emphasize the "have to do with the activity" over the "have to do with the outcome of the activity" here. Which might be just too much to ask for a naming convention in English?
How would you phrase the naming convention for a Service in a grammar based approach?
(Now you might understand why Hungarians are so weird, and how this horrible idea of Hungarian notation came up: it is in our language :) )
Before anything else, I would love to thank you for your brief explanation of the Hungarian language. I actually learned a lot from it. I may not memorize the words, but I now understand the subtle semantics behind them.
As for your question, I don't quite follow what you mean by "phrase the naming convention"?
I am the one who should write down (phrase) what our naming conventions should be. And I am struggling with such simple questions, whether "registration" counts as a noun or adjective in this case.
Ah, I see. In my view, I'd say it's more appropriate to regard them as nouns, especially if you refer to the "process" or "object" as a whole. The "outcome" should be communicated as a consequence of functions (verbs). For example, the "outcome" of a process must be communicated through function names such as getRegistrationStatus or registerUser. That way, we can be explicit on whether we're referring to the "process" or the "outcome".
The only problem that in our implemetation pattern the function name does not convey any information, as there is only one function per controller, according to Single Responsibility Principle. It is fixed to be "call".
Ahh, that's going to be a tough nut to crack then. I suppose my only advice for now is to remain consistent with it. It is ideal to follow the current convention whether it prescribes the "process" or "outcome".
Honestly, it's quite a lackluster piece of advice, but it's really the best one I have right now at the top of my head.
It's a noun that has an adjective function. It's called "Noun Adjunct". And modern English, especially American (which means IT English), favors noun adjuncts over real adjectives, even when those adjectives are available, more and more often.
I believe the problem here is that Hungarian simply has much more resolution/precision than English. Russian guy speaking, where we have 30+ forms of every word.
Great article!
As a non-native speaker I am struggling with defining naming conventions based on grammar-based approach. We have a rather elaborate implementation pattern, with around 15 different types of units (like DTO, Entity, Service, Test, Test Base, Test Data, etc). In my native language (Hungarian) there is a clear distinction between not just roles of a word in a sentence, but types of word: in most cases if you look at a word out of context you can tell its type based the agglutinations it wears. (This is because the order of words in our language is loose: we do not order them based on their role in the sentence (that is apparent from their type), but based on what to be emphasized, and what is new information).
For example I know that I want names like "RegistrationService", but I have problems from that point on. In Hungarian I would use words for "Registration" which start from a verb as a stem: "regisztrál" = "register", denoting an activity. After that I would add a modifier making it a noun, and my understanding is that English stops somewhere here: "regisztrálás" = "registration", which refers to the process, and "regisztráció" = "registration", which refers to the outcome of the activity. But in Hungarian I would also add a modifier to make it an adjective, which as I understand is implicit or different or ambigous in English: "regisztrációs" ~= "registrational"; something which has to do with the process of registration, or "regisztrálási" ~= "registrational"(?); something which has to do with the outcome of the activity of registration.
Maybe my first problem here is to understand whether "registration" here is even a noun or an adjective: for me it looks like a noun, but its place in the sentence (as "the thing giving the quality of being concerned with the activity of registration to the (noun) service") begs for an adjective in my limited (and influenced by my native language) understanding of these things.
The other part is that I would like to emphasize the "have to do with the activity" over the "have to do with the outcome of the activity" here. Which might be just too much to ask for a naming convention in English?
How would you phrase the naming convention for a Service in a grammar based approach?
(Now you might understand why Hungarians are so weird, and how this horrible idea of Hungarian notation came up: it is in our language :) )
Before anything else, I would love to thank you for your brief explanation of the Hungarian language. I actually learned a lot from it. I may not memorize the words, but I now understand the subtle semantics behind them.
As for your question, I don't quite follow what you mean by "phrase the naming convention"?
I am the one who should write down (phrase) what our naming conventions should be. And I am struggling with such simple questions, whether "registration" counts as a noun or adjective in this case.
Ah, I see. In my view, I'd say it's more appropriate to regard them as nouns, especially if you refer to the "process" or "object" as a whole. The "outcome" should be communicated as a consequence of functions (verbs). For example, the "outcome" of a process must be communicated through function names such as
getRegistrationStatusorregisterUser. That way, we can be explicit on whether we're referring to the "process" or the "outcome".The only problem that in our implemetation pattern the function name does not convey any information, as there is only one function per controller, according to Single Responsibility Principle. It is fixed to be "call".
Ahh, that's going to be a tough nut to crack then. I suppose my only advice for now is to remain consistent with it. It is ideal to follow the current convention whether it prescribes the "process" or "outcome".
Honestly, it's quite a lackluster piece of advice, but it's really the best one I have right now at the top of my head.
It's a noun that has an adjective function. It's called "Noun Adjunct". And modern English, especially American (which means IT English), favors noun adjuncts over real adjectives, even when those adjectives are available, more and more often.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct
english.stackexchange.com/question...
I believe the problem here is that Hungarian simply has much more resolution/precision than English. Russian guy speaking, where we have 30+ forms of every word.
Thank you Noun Adjunct then. (It was Hungarian, a finno-ugric language. Romanian is an indo-european one from the latin family.)