>It's worse than being non-descriptive- it's that they become misleading. "Cute" names don't tell you anything. Formerly descriptive names tell you the wrong thing.
My God... You don't mean to tell me you actually object to having to read code and figuring out what it does in the grand scheme of things?
I swear, everyone wants to be a writer, but no one wants to read and understand.
Not only is your comment needlessly snarky, but it also mis-characterizes what I said. Show me where in my comment I said that I "object to reading code and figuring out what it does in the grand scheme of things".
What I "object to" is not being able to trust that a class or method does what it says on the tin. I don't think that's unreasonable. I'm fine with reading code in order to understand how something works. I don't want to have to read code in order to verify that it does what it promises. See the difference?
You shouldn’t have to read code to understand architecture. But I have had so many conversations like “this is the Auth-service, it also loadbalances and stores a bunch of state, oh and doesn’t do Auth anymore”. Then the name becomes actively harmful to understanding the system.
My God... You don't mean to tell me you actually object to having to read code and figuring out what it does in the grand scheme of things?
I swear, everyone wants to be a writer, but no one wants to read and understand.