Well, my System here is currently a Mix of Both conventions. "Class"-Name as prefix(Camelcase), underscore, Methodname(CamelCase).

Like:

TBigWindow_DrawSomething(MyWindow);

Thought about this to keep a visual gap between the Structname and methodname.
Havent tried full Camelcase for this approach yet(no underscore).


Greets
Rackscha

I would go with one way, either completely camel case or just underscores because its easier to learn as a beginner. Plus: I would throw out the T and replace it with a two or three letter abbreviation to avoid function name collisions and as a replacement for namespaces.
But thats just my opinion.

Normally, CamelCase is what i prefer. Iam using it at work in Delphi(for 10Month now).

When i started to do some OOP like things in LiteC, i wanted a Name for a method that States what it does, and which class it is part of. Thats why i started to use the ClassName_MethodName approach.

I have been a bit scared about something like:

TMyClassThatDoesSomeFancyShit() as a method name. You have to look twice to see which class its part of. So i went TMyClass_DoSomeFancyShit();
In Java, Delphi Iam still using normal CamelCase since they support real classes.

And maybe i should stop here, because i dont want to bash you Thread with offtopic things^^

Greets
Rackscha

Nah, don't worry, you help spreading lite foundation (6 dls since your first post), so keep the Off-Topic talk as long as you want

Btw, I doubt that the underscore helps, here are a few examples from Lite Foundation:


Its visible to which class the function belongs although its camel case. I find this more easily to read plus its also states what it does (which is also a naming convention I favor (say what you do without saying how you do it)).

Okay^^



Mh, see what you mean. The underscore had another reason: My typerythm .

May try out to use PureCamelCase since i have to rewrite most parts of my game, so rewriting some ugly parts of my guy seems to be something on my checklist too.

But i have a mainproblem whenerver i write code thats not Delphi.. i start to write delphi in LiteC for example v.v:

Value := Value + 1;

Serious who had this nightmare when developing pascal >.<.

Anyway. Going to bed now, tommorow is time for work again

Greets
Rackscha

Okay, ten downloads so far since my server is down.
This means that there are at least eleven opinions about Lite Foundation and I want to hear them. Wether it is a "its too complicated", "I don't get it" or a "I fucking hate you, please die", please write it down.

If you don't like certain parts, go ahead an blame me! Otherwise I can't improve the whole stuff.

i think the problem is that majority of users need not use such ADTs,they hold small projs,they focus on developing rapidly.
so your lib wont help them so much though your lib is veeeeeery powerful.
imp a path finding system i guess is more useful to them,and reach 1K downloads…

well, sorry for my English.

Yes you are probably right, the problem is that a pathfinding solution doesn't fit into my kernel project where I need Lite Foundation instead ^^
Anyway, imo even small hoby projects can profit from Lite Foundation, eg. the array class can be dropped into any project and works perfectly fine with storing eg. entities. This would help beginners because they don't need to implement their own (which probably does some horrible memory faults), without the need that they understand how eg. the LF runtime works.

But yeah, your point is nonetheless valid and I would love to hear from the "average" user what they wish and what could have been done better to even catch the average user.

Server down? o_O

Yes, I already posted an alternate link (can't edit my first post anymore).
But here is the link again, just in case someone missed it:
http://cl.ly/6ghG