[Geminidog]

> You're mostly arguing on why your naming preferences are better. You're missing the point, I'm not addressing that.

No I am not arguing for that. I am saying your style is objectively LESS practical and harder to read. You missed the point repeatedly.

>Instead you seem to agree people name things in the same (irrational according to you) way both in English and Python.

When did I claim this? You seem to be misreading everything. Functions in "python" or programming in general are by most people named by trying to find some word or hybrid mangling of the english language to find an elegant but less informative name. Similar to how poetry is a mangling of English grammar.

I am saying that it is more practical to NAME a function in programming with a longer phrase or sentence. Whether you "feel" that's ok or not is irrelevant to the actual practicality of that name. You didn't even read my post.

>No, it's not ok only because it's English. It's ok because it's a definition, it is not a name. In English as in Python we tend to prefer more concise names.

Your just getting semantics mixed up. We call function names a "name" but it can also be called a function "sentence" or "function phrase"

Here's a more clear way to get it through your head:

"Function phrases" are more practical and informative then "function names" aka "function abbreviations/poetic words"

I am saying what you "prefer" or how you feel about the above statement is completely irrelevant to the fact that logically "function phrases" are more informative with the cost of being slightly longer.

My claim is your preferences are totally irrational and you are missing the point. Read it more carefully.

>A function's name is...a name (duh), the comparison to prose makes no sense.

It makes no sense to you because your brain is limited by the words "function name" you think because we call the naming of a function a "function name" your brain is unable to wrap around the fact that you can use a collection of words in the naming of a function. That's why I renamed "function name" into "function phrase" to help kick start your brain into gear and get on my level.

>Once you actually compare English and Python names you'll see they both tend to be more concise.

Again, missing the point repeatedly. Stop letting the word "name" block your creativity. Whatever we call something in the universe, a title a name or whatever, I can choose to be not concise, concise, put an entire sentence into the title, put an entire novel into the title. There are no actual rules on what we want to do and can do. The argument is simply for what is actually practically better to put into this "title" for programming.

This is the playing field we're operating in, You are letting your personal vocabulary and definition of "name" to delude your thinking.

So I am saying I want to use longer phrases/sentences or "function phrases" as the title of a function and you are saying that you want to use shorter/briefer names and that is a "preference" Then you say that my "preference" is not a "name"

My counter to your above is that whatever you want to call "naming" is completely irrelevant, my "preference" is categorically, objectivity and logically more practical and informative then your "naming" style. It is better because it communicates more information get it?

The thing that's missing here is that you haven't objectively told me why your style is better. It conveys less information and is thus logically worse. I'm betting that you have no reason. You just irrationally "feel" it's better to use "function names" or "function phrases"

>Ironically I find your style more poetic (we really have opposite tastes :P).

This is where your thinking is cloudy. First off this has nothing to do with taste. I am literally saying your "preference" is objectively less informative and therefore worse.

The other part of your thinking that is cloudy is your misinterpretation of the word "poetic." Poetry is a mangling of English vocabulary and grammar that is more Concise. My proposal is to move away from mangled English and grammatically incorrect "function names" and write "function phrases" that are grammatically closer to correct English. Your proposal is to make it shorter and more like poetry as per the exact definition given above.

People who can't think straight tend to think anything goes in poetry and that either naming scheme (yours vs. mine) can be poetry as a matter of taste. Wrong. There are hard rules that separate poetry from written English. Again, my style is to make programming closer to grammatically correct english, your style is to create poetry as per the definition of poetry above.

>But as you saw we both keep the same preferences independently of the language.

What same preferences? Our preferences are objectively different. And my preference for "function phrases" is objectively better and more informative then your "preference." We never reached an agreement I don't know how your imagination is cooking this up.

>No incoherence/bias there. That's the only point I'm making.

Again I am saying my "preference" is logically BETTER then your preference because it saves the reader time from guessing context and is more informative.

Look man, stop. This is a typical argumentative strategy to turn hard facts into muddy "opinions" and "preferences." In your world nothing is better or worse and everything is just a preference and anything goes. This is weak.

I have a "preference" that is different from your preference and I am stating my preference is better then your preference and your response is that everyone can have their own opinion? Come on.

[simo7]

> We call function names a "name" but it can also be called a function "sentence" or "function phrase"

I mean...we can also say that pigs are birds if you wish, everything is possible XD

Who in English would ever name anything as "A function that finds the x y coordinates of dogs cats and baboons in a picture". Does that sound like a name to you?

Do you actually speak like this in your daily life? "Please can you turn on the device for remotely visualising entertainment shows, news and sport events?"

Ah I forgot names don't exist: a name is a phrase, a definition is a phrase, a question is a phrase, an assertion is a phrase...can all be used interchangeably, they all serve the same purpose...ssure.

I think at this point you're lost in your own sophism. Good luck getting out of it!

[Geminidog]

>I mean...we can also say that pigs are birds if you wish, everything is possible XD

That's right we can. What you're failing to see here is that this naming is arbitrary. It truly seperate from structure.

>Who in English would ever name anything as "A function that finds the x y coordinates of dogs cats and baboons in a picture". Does that sound like a name to you?

That's why your thinking is limited. Whatever we call a function or a thing doesn't have to be limited by your definition of what is a "name" the limit is placed by you not reality.

>Do you actually speak like this in your daily life?

Can you get it through your head? You speak in sentences do you not? You don't ONLY use names to describe things, you use sentences. So we CAN use a sentence to DESCRIBE a function definition. Just because we call this description a "function name" doesn't mean we should be limited by the concept of what you define as a "name"

>"Please can you turn on the device for remotely visualising entertainment shows, news and sport events?"

Fortunately unlike speaking our editors assist us with auto complete.

If such a primitive existed in your program and you just called it "remote" and left the reader to guess what the hell it does by looking at context... you'd be a really bad coder.

Call it:

    "controller_that_changes_television_channels" 

And auto complete assists us with the length of the name. So really length isn't even that big of a factor here.

>Ah I forgot names don't exist: a name is a phrase, a definition is a phrase, a question is a phrase, an assertion is a phrase...can all be used interchangeably, they all serve the same purpose...ssure.

They actually do serve the same purpose. The purpose is communication. The problem with you is that you think the only form of communication in programming is names and context. I am saying you can use english sentences as well. It's that simple.

>I think at this point you're lost in your own sophism. Good luck getting out of it!

My argument? This isn't my argument. I'm not smart enough to invent this concept.

You ever heard of a guy named Donald Knuth? The guy who basically turned programming and algorithms into a science? Wrote the books "The Art of Computer Programming"? Well he invented something called literate programming:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literate_programming

Take a look because in Literate programming people create "macros" and name those Macros after Entire essays or paragraphs. Donald does not restrict the "naming" of macros into pathetic little snippets of poetic words. His mind does not restrict what you can "name" something, not like your mind.

Don't let the word "macro" confuse your brain... macros are the same thing as functions, just a bit more advanced. The primary difference is that functions are resolved at run time, Macros are resolved pre-compile time.

This is my point.

You're not trying to debate my argument. You're debating an entire style of programming created by Donald Knuth.

I deliberately hid the official name of this technique because dropping the name Donald Knuth would just get people to agree with his reputation rather then reason and logic behind his thinking. Given that reason and logic doesn't work with you I think a name drop is relevant here.

It's not my sophism. It's Donald Knuth. Good luck trying to resolve your sophism with a concept invented by Donald Knuth.

[simo7]

> They actually do serve the same purpose. The purpose is communication

You just said that a name, definition, question and assertion all serve the same purpose and can be used interchangeably...I mean what else can I say?

Exactly.

It was a nice exchange nonetheless but at this point it really looks like you hit a dead end.

[Geminidog]

>You just said that a name, definition, question and assertion all serve the same purpose and can be used interchangeably...I mean what else can I say?

They can be used interchangeably similar to how people can choose to be wrong, right, stupid or smart. The ability to interchange techniques is irrelevant to my point. I am simply responding to a misguided concept stated by you.

A longer phrase can be used interchangeably with a shorter name. The longer phrase is superior to your misguided opinion on using shorter and as a result uninformative names. Donald Knuth agrees.

I am saying your way is the categorically wrong and worse way. You can't respond to this because you got nothing left to say. You're tongue tied.

>Exactly

Yeah you're exactly wrong.

>It was a nice exchange nonetheless but at this point it really looks like you hit a dead end.

Literally I have reams and reams of evidence, deconstructing each of your points and tearing apart every statement you made. You only have the capacity to respond to one teeny tiny snippet of what I wrote and your response is still misguided.

I'm sorry, but the dead end is you.