There are camels with one hump and camels with two humps.
This translates to CamelCase. Both camelCase and CamelCase are considered CamelCase. They just have different humps.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-26 13:06
I'mma get get get GetYou drunk, GetYou loveDrunk off myHumps.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-26 13:10
You know what my pet peeve is? People trying to force camelCase/PascalCase in C/C++. Fuck. It's like they thought it would be a good idea to bring their shitty naming style over from Java or C# and fuck things up for real programmings. Ultimately, I blame Microsoft for Hungarian, which is the true root of this scourge.
It's fucking C or C++ people! Everything is lower case and underscores, with some exceptions for preprocessor macros or template parameters. When in Rome, you should walk like the Romans. Not like some fucking jungle monkeys from Africa.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-26 13:23
>>11
camelCase is from SmallTalk. They used it before Pascal, C++ and Java.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-26 13:26
>>11 I blame Microsoft for Hungarian, which is the true root of this scourge.
You should blame static-typing ideology for it.
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-26 13:30
>>13
No. Hungarian has nothing to do with typing. In fact, Hungarian was originally meant for assembly language where there is no typing at all (mostly with MASM which had a powerful preprocessor and macro system).
But for some reason, the developers at Microsoft carried it over to C and then C++. What a disaster. I'm glad Microsoft has done well to not taint their more modern technologies with it.
>>13
Hungarian was used to note types but it's pointless in static languages. The compiler does that work for you. If any language would benefit from it, it would be a dynamic language. The fact that it was used in static languages is the result of brain damage, possibly brought on by the lack of decent language support. (vi is hard to use after using vim for a few years, etc.)
Name:
Anonymous2011-05-26 14:18
>>16>>14 If any language would benefit from it, it would be a dynamic language.
Nope. It's just that statically-typed retards are brainwashed with typesystems and can't make a step without them.
If you want to see data structure, just eval function and inspect result.
>>17
I said that in >>16, try to keep up. It doesn't matter what its history is, the fact is it's useless in statically typed languages. (With exceptions where it's an unfortunate part of the language.)
With a dynamically typed language there's at least the potential use of expressing the intended use of the variable, assuming the type model is too chickenshit to do it for you.