并非所有人都同意我对命名的看法。一些使用 Go 语言的开发人员认为，名称应该非常简短，通常只能是一个字符。在关于 Go 的名称选择的演示中，Andrew Gerrand 指出“长名称模糊了代码的作用。” 1 他介绍了此代码示例，该示例使用单字母变量名：
func RuneCount(b []byte) int {
i, n := 0, 0
for i < len(b) {
if b[i] < RuneSelf {
i++
} else {
_, size := DecodeRune(b[i:])
i += size
}
n++
}
return n
}
并认为它比以下使用更长名称的版本更具可读性：
func RuneCount(buffer []byte) int {
index, count := 0, 0
for index < len(buffer) {
if buffer[index] < RuneSelf {
index++
} else {
_, size := DecodeRune(buffer[index:])
index += size
}
count++
}
return count
}
就个人而言，我不觉得第二版比第一版更难读。如果有的话，与 n 相比，名称计数为变量的行为提供了更好的线索。在第一个版本中，我最终通读了代码，试图弄清楚 n 的含义，而第二个版本中我并没有这种需要。但是，如果在整个系统中一致地使用 n 来引用计数（而没有其他内容），那么其他开发人员可能会清楚知道该短名称。
Go 文化鼓励在多个不同的事物上使用相同的短名称：ch 用于字符或通道，d 用于数据，差异或距离，等等。对我来说，像这样的模棱两可的名称很可能导致混乱和错误，就像在示例中一样。
总的来说，我认为可读性必须由读者而不是作家来决定。如果您使用简短的变量名编写代码，并且阅读该代码的人很容易理解，那么很好。如果您开始抱怨代码很含糊，那么您应该考虑使用更长的名称（在网络上搜索“ go language short name”（使用语言简称）会识别出几种此类抱怨）。同样，如果我开始抱怨长变量名使我的代码难以阅读，那么我会考虑使用较短的变量名。
Gerrand 发表一个我同意的评论：“名称声明与使用之间的距离越大，名称就应该越长。” 前面有关使用名为 i 和 j 的循环变量的讨论是此规则的示例。
精心选择的名称有助于使代码更明显。当某人第一次遇到该变量时，他们对行为的第一次猜测是正确的。选择好名字是 第三章：工作代码是不够的 讨论的投资思维方式的一个示例：如果您花一些额外的时间来选择好名字，那么将来您将更容易处理代码。此外，您不太可能引入错误。培养命名技巧也是一项投资。当您第一次决定停止为平庸的名字定居时，您会发现想出好名字的过程既令人沮丧又耗时。但是，随着您获得更多的经验，您会发现它变得更加容易。最终，您将几乎不需要花费额外的时间来选择好名字，因此您几乎可以免费获得好处。
Not everyone shares my views about naming. Some of the developers of the Go language argue that names should be very short, often only a single character. In a presentation on name choice for Go, Andrew Gerrand states that “long names obscure what the code does.”1 He presents this code sample, which uses single-letter variable names:
func RuneCount(b []byte) int {
i, n := 0, 0
for i < len(b) {
if b[i] < RuneSelf {
i++
} else {
_, size := DecodeRune(b[i:])
i += size
}
n++
}
return n
}
and argues that it is more readable than the following version, which uses longer names:
func RuneCount(buffer []byte) int {
index, count := 0, 0
for index < len(buffer) {
if buffer[index] < RuneSelf {
index++
} else {
_, size := DecodeRune(buffer[index:])
index += size
}
count++
}
return count
}
Personally, I don’t find the second version any more difficult to read than the first. If anything, the name count gives a slightly better clue to the behavior of the variable than n. With the first version I ended up reading through the code trying to figure out what n means, whereas I didn’t feel that need with the second version. But, if n is used consistently throughout the system to refer to counts (and nothing else), then the short name will probably be clear to other developers.
The Go culture encourages the use of the same short name for multiple different things: ch for character or channel, d for data, difference, or distance, and so on. To me, ambiguous names like these are likely to result in confusion and error, just as in the block example.
Overall, I would argue that readability must be determined by readers, not writers. If you write code with short variable names and the people who read it find it easy to understand, then that’s fine. If you start getting complaints that your code is cryptic, then you should consider using longer names (a Web search for “go language short names” will identify several such complaints). Similarly, if I start getting complaints that long variable names make my code harder to read, then I’ll consider using shorter ones.
Gerrand makes one comment that I agree with: “The greater the distance between a name’s declaration and its uses, the longer the name should be.” The earlier discussion about using loop variables named i and j is an example of this rule.
Well chosen names help to make code more obvious; when someone encounters the variable for the first time, their first guess about its behavior, made without much thought, will be correct. Choosing good names is an example of the investment mindset discussed in Chapter 3: if you take a little extra time up front to select good names, it will be easier for you to work on the code in the future. In addition, you will be less likely to introduce bugs. Developing a skill for naming is also an investment. When you first decide to stop settling for mediocre names, you may find it frustrating and time-consuming to come up with good names. However, as you get more experience you’ll find that it becomes easier; eventually, you’ll get to the point where it takes almost no extra time to choose good names, so you will get the benefits almost for free.