I've always believed in using descriptive names for my variables, regardless of how briefly they are used. In most cases, I prefer more meaningful names than just using "i" in a loop. However, after working on a project in Go with some assistance from a language model (LLM), I noticed that some example codes it provided utilized very short variable names. When I asked the LLM about this, it mentioned that in Go's style guide, there's a concept that says, "the length of a variable's name should be proportional to its scope and the distance between its declaration and its last use." It argued that longer names can add noise rather than clarity in small scopes like loops or short functions. I'm curious, is this really the best approach to naming variables? For context, here's a snippet of code that sparked my questioning:
```go
func startsWithRune(b []byte, r rune) bool {
if len(b) == 0 {
return false
}
firstRune, size := utf8.DecodeRune(b)
if firstRune == utf8.RuneError && size <= 1 {
return false
}
return firstRune == r
}
```
4 Answers
As someone who has been coding in Go for a while, I think this approach can make sense. In my experience, having concise variable names in small scopes can actually help make the code cleaner. But, it can also lead to confusion if the variables get too short, so I think balance is key. A good descriptive name is definitely better when the variable's lifespan is longer and it’s used in multiple places throughout the code.
This approach harks back to older programming habits where memory was at a premium. These days, with so much space available, I think we should prioritize clarity. Using single-letter variable names feels outdated to me, especially when it's so easy to use more descriptive names without worrying about memory issues as much anymore.
I totally agree! I get that tradition plays a part, but I'm all for adapting our coding practices to today's standards. Clarity should always come first.
The idea behind using short names for short-lived variables is somewhat similar to Zipf’s law; shorter words are typically used more frequently but don't need to convey as much information when their scope is limited. Inside a small scope, like a loop, you can easily tell what a short variable is doing because you can see its declaration and usage right there. However, when variables have a longer lifespan in your code, a more descriptive name is definitely warranted to avoid confusion.
This practice is pretty standard in Go, according to the language's guidelines, but personally, I find it hard to get on board with. I mean, short variable names like just a letter can make the code harder to read if you're used to more descriptive names. I haven’t really written Go professionally, so maybe that colors my perception, but I prefer clarity over brevity.
Exactly, and while short names in small scopes might work, it's essential to maintain readability. If you keep using single letters everywhere, you're just making it harder for others (or even yourself later!) to understand what's going on.