Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • The name could also try to describe why it's better, e.g. SimpleComponentFinder. Commented Jul 11 at 1:38
  • @IllusiveBrian: sure. Still. that is the example I intentionally tried to avoid, because it can be interpreted in two ways: simplified API, or simplified (=reduced) functionality - and my argument above is exactly against giving the latter impression. Commented Jul 11 at 5:34
  • Originally I had thought something more descriptive like RecursiveComponentFinde or RegexComponentFinder but I don't know what the actual improvement is. Commented Jul 11 at 11:33
  • I'm all for SergeysComponentFinder because it doesn't make any claims about being better but just implies that it has some functionality that is useful for Sergey's use case. In my employer's code base we have quite a few classes that have the first letter in front to signal that it has some in-house modification. Commented Jul 11 at 12:03
  • Aren't you put off by the subjectivity of the word "better"? Commented Jul 11 at 13:45