Comments on: “Get” Stuffed http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/ don't you worry about blank, let me worry about blank Fri, 04 Jul 2008 03:46:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1-alpha2 by: Ankur http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9895 Mon, 07 May 2007 03:51:26 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9895 The Digg API Framework now uses "fetch" prefix instead of "get". The Digg API Framework now uses “fetch” prefix instead of “get”.

]]> by: Jacob Rus http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9695 Thu, 03 May 2007 07:50:37 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9695 Authors should really stop using “get” in their prose as well. There are many more specific substitute verbs in English. And precision is critical to well-written code and well-written text. Authors should really stop using “get” in their prose as well. There are many more specific substitute verbs in English. And precision is critical to well-written code and well-written text.

]]> by: J Nozzi http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9643 Wed, 02 May 2007 02:23:00 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9643 Guys (and gals?), you're missing one big point: KVC and KVO (required to use Cocoa Bindings). Search your friendly documentation ... Guys (and gals?), you’re missing one big point: KVC and KVO (required to use Cocoa Bindings). Search your friendly documentation …

]]> by: Nehemiah http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9624 Tue, 01 May 2007 19:07:46 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9624 I think arron Hellegass (sorry i wrecked your name) wants us to "get" away from get as a desegnator of accessor methods. The idea here is that the "messages" we send are commands to an object NOT method names we are just calling. size = string.getSize() is not as simple as size = [string size] sence you shouldn't be accessing instance variables (or member variables) anyway. thats not the object oriented way. I think arron Hellegass (sorry i wrecked your name) wants us to “get” away from get as a desegnator of accessor methods. The idea here is that the “messages” we send are commands to an object NOT method names we are just calling.
size = string.getSize() is not as simple as size = [string size] sence you shouldn’t be accessing instance variables (or member variables) anyway. thats not the object oriented way.

]]> by: Colin Barrett http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9604 Tue, 01 May 2007 05:43:13 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9604 In addition to the Cocoa usage of "get", I've seen another good one. In Mozilla code, functions prefixed by Get return values that you need to null check. Conversely, functions that do not start with Get need no null checking. At least, that's the way it works in theory ;) To extend your original point, *any* words without real semantic meaning should be purged from you function names. Another particularly bad one I see a lot is including the name of the class in a method. -[Moo getMooSize:] is just silly. In addition to the Cocoa usage of “get”, I’ve seen another good one.

In Mozilla code, functions prefixed by Get return values that you need to null check. Conversely, functions that do not start with Get need no null checking.

At least, that’s the way it works in theory ;)

To extend your original point, *any* words without real semantic meaning should be purged from you function names. Another particularly bad one I see a lot is including the name of the class in a method. -[Moo getMooSize:] is just silly.

]]> by: Chris Hanson http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9577 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:12:26 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9577 Actually, the "get" prefix has a very specific meaning in Cocoa-derived APIs: It means that you're going to be passing in a location by reference where the result should be stored. For example, <a href="http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Reference/Foundation/Classes/NSString_Class/Reference/NSString.html#//apple_ref/occ/instm/NSString/getCString:maxLength:encoding:" rel="nofollow">-[NSString getCString:maxLength:encoding:]</a> requires you to pass a buffer into which it will place the result. Following the conventions of an API is important when building additional frameworks and applications atop it. Actually, the “get” prefix has a very specific meaning in Cocoa-derived APIs: It means that you’re going to be passing in a location by reference where the result should be stored. For example, -[NSString getCString:maxLength:encoding:] requires you to pass a buffer into which it will place the result.

Following the conventions of an API is important when building additional frameworks and applications atop it.

]]> by: David Young http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9573 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 04:53:37 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9573 You are free to substitute another verb in its place. I am have nothing against verbs. You are free to substitute another verb in its place. I am have nothing against verbs.

]]> by: Taybin http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9570 Mon, 30 Apr 2007 03:27:03 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9570 I don't see what "get" has to do with the problem. How is this better? <code> -storyWithID: preferences() userProfile() </code> ? I don’t see what “get” has to do with the problem.

How is this better?

-storyWithID:
preferences()
userProfile()

?

]]> by: stuffonfire.com - “Get” Stuffed http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9556 Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:37:27 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9556 [...] Today i read on stuffonfire.com» “Get” tuffed that the writer of that article (i did not find a name of the blogwriter yet :-D) doesn&#8217;t like to use &#8220;get&#8221; in object-methods. The author has some good reasons, why he does that. [...] […] Today i read on stuffonfire.com» “Get” tuffed that the writer of that article (i did not find a name of the blogwriter yet :-D ) doesn’t like to use “get” in object-methods. The author has some good reasons, why he does that. […]

]]> by: PatrickQG http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9555 Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:34:45 +0000 http://www.stuffonfire.com/2007/04/29/get-stuffed/#comment-9555 If what you are interfacing with is well written, does it really matter what it does to "get" you what you ask for? -getStoryWithID: could easily be changed to do a SQL query. Why be more specific? Why you care what "get" actually means? How is that worse than, say, (on a story class) -find:? Perhaps just -storyWithID:? Now progress/status... you make a solid point. If what you are interfacing with is well written, does it really matter what it does to “get” you what you ask for? -getStoryWithID: could easily be changed to do a SQL query. Why be more specific? Why you care what “get” actually means? How is that worse than, say, (on a story class) -find:? Perhaps just -storyWithID:?

Now progress/status… you make a solid point.

]]>