I find myself doing this from time to time and I end up just doing a search on the variable name and then looking through all the hits, skipping the ones that aren't what I'm looking for. But it occurred to me that if Xcode could reliably filter into one set or the other, it would make the process more efficient. Because quite often one only needs to know where a variable is changed in particular, so reads don't really matter then.
I can think of some ways eg. searching for "setXXX" and "XXX =" etc. but that all seems a bit clunky and imprecise. Is there a better way?
I am mostly coding in Objective-C and am looking for a way to do a static search of the source code.
What I do when I want to search for a symbol in Xcode I use the built-in search tool as you suggested in your question and that is good enough for me. However, if you want better tools for static analysis of obj-c code I'd suggest XClarify from CodeGears. It became free for open source contributors and research.
My initial take on XCode is that it makes hard things easier, and easy things harder (find & replace requires way too many keystrokes, for example...). The biggest one to me, however is a lack of a method wizard... I tend to write lots of small methods, and I'm finding it hard to believe that you can't declare your method in a popup and have the interface and implementation files populated with stubs. Am I missing something? Frankly, I get far more functionality out of vi from an editor perspective.
I don't think you can do that exactly as you want it (without a plugin like Accessorizer), but it's not necessary, since you can create your own snippets, as highlighted in this snippet question, that will then contain the stubs you really need. Since most basic methods are written for you (or only require a few keywords to be autogenerated with your requirements, with #synthesize, etc...), it makes sense to me.
However, this could make your day if you still are unhappy :D
I was just wondering if there was a tool like this that existed, or something within Visual Studio 2010 that I just haven't come across before. I have a situation that arises that I'm sure many other people have ran into before. I debug into a method one time, and it works, another time, and it fails. I know (on the front end), what needs to happen for it to fail, and what needs to happen for it to pass, however I can't seem to find anything on the back-end that would show me the differences in all the properties that get passed through that method for each use case.
Is there a tool that can kind of analyze the objects in the code that I am passing through this method through each run, and then show me a diff of properties? Which ones are set/aren't set, which ones are different, etc.?
I normally wouldn't mind just blowing up the watches on each monitor and cruising through them, but we have a LOT of properties on these specific objects.
Thanks guys.
Would something like Mole 2010 work? I know you can basically do a diff on objects to compare their properties, but I'm not sure if this would work in your situation with method parameters.
Maybe Pex will help you? It analyzes your code and created input values based on identified code paths and boundary cases.
Let's say you've inherited a C# codebase that uses one class with 200 static methods to provide core functionality (such as database lookups). Of the many nightmares in that class, there's copious use of Hungarian notation (the bad kind).
Would you refactor the variable names to remove the Hungarian notation, or would you leave them alone?
If you chose to change all the variables to remove Hungarian notation, what would be your method?
Refactor -- I find Hungarian notation on that scale really interferes with the natural readability of the code, and the exercise is a good way of getting familiar with what's there.
However, if there are other team members who know the code base you would need consensus on the refactoring, and if any of the variables are exposed outside of the one project then you will have to leave them alone.
Just leave it alone. There are better uses of your time.
Right click on the variable name, Refactor -> Rename.
There are VS add-ins that do this as well, but the built-in method works fine for me.
What would I do? Assuming that I just have to maintain the code and not rewrite it any significant way? Leave it well alone. And When I do add code, go with the existing style, meaning, use that ugly Hungarian notation (as dirty as that makes me feel.)
But, hey, if you really have a hankerin' fer refactorin' then just do a little at a time. Every time you work on it spend ten minutes renaming variables. Tidying things up a little. After a few months you might find it's clean as a whistle....
Don't forget that there are two kinds of Hungarian Notation.
The original Charles Simonyi HN, later known as App's Hungarian and the later abomination called System Hungarian after some peckerhead (it's a technical term) totally misread Simonyi's original paper.
Unfortunately, System HN was propagated by Petzold and others to become the more dominant abortion that it is rightfully recognised as today.
Read Joel's excellent article about the intent of the original Apps Hungarian Notation and be sorry for what got lost in the rush.
If what you've got is App's Hungarian you will probably want to keep it after reading both the original Charles Simonyi article and the Joel article.
If you've landed in a steaming pile of System Hungarian?
All bets are off!
Whew! (said while holding nose) (-:
if you're feeling lucky and just want the Hungarian to go away, isolate the Hungarian prefixes that are used and try a search and replace in file to replace them with nothing, then do a clean and rebuild. If the number of errors is small, just fix it. If the number of errors is huge, go back and break it up into logical (by domain) classes first, then rename individually (the IDE will help)
I used to use it religiously back in the VB6 days, but stopped when VB.NET came out because that's what the new VB guidelines said. Other developers didn't. So, we’ve got a lot of old code with it. When I do maintenance on code I remove the notation from the functions/methods/sub I touch. I wouldn't remove it all at once unless you've got really good unit tests for everything and can run them to prove that nothing's broken.
How much are you going to break by doing this? That's an important question to ask yourself. If there are a lot of other pieces of code that use that library, then you might just be creating work for folks (maybe you) by going through the renaming exercise.
I'd put it on the list of things to do when refactoring. At least then everyone expects you to be breaking the library (temporarily).
That said, I totally get frustrated with poorly named methods and variables, so I can relate.
I wouldn't make a project out of it. I'd use the refactoring tools in VS (actually, I'd use Resharper's, but VS's work just fine) and fix all the variables in any method I was called upon to modify. Or if I had to make larger-scale changes, I'd refactor the variable names in any method I was called upon to understand.
If you have a legitimate need to remove and change it I would use either the built in refactoring tools, or something like Resharper.
However, I would agree with Chris Conway to a certain standpoint and ask you WHY, yes, it is annoying, but at the same time, a lot of the time the "if it aint't broke done't fix it" method is really the best way to go!
Only change it when you directly use it. And make sure you have a testbench ready to apply to ensure it still works.
I agree that the best way to phase out hungarian notation is to refactor code as you modify it. The greatest benefit of doing this kind of refactoring is that you should be writing unit tests around the code you're modifying so that you have a safety net instead of crossing your fingers and hoping that you don't break existing functionality. Once you have these unit tests in place, you are free to change the code to your heart's content.
I'd say a bigger problem is that you have a single class with 200(!) methods!
If this is a much depended on / much changed class then it might be worth refactoring to make it more usable.
In this, Resharper is an absolute must (you could use the built in refactoring stuff, but Resharper is way better).
Start finding a group of related methods, and then refactor these out into a nice small cohesive class. Update to conform to your latest code standards.
Compile & run your test suite.
Have energy for more? Extract another class.
Worn out - no trouble; come back and do some more tomorrow. In just a few days you'll have conquered the beast.
I agree with #Booji -- do it manually, on a per-routine basis when you're already visiting the code for some other good reason. Then, you'll get the most common ones out of the way, and who cares about the rest.
I was thinking of asking a similar question, only in my case, the offending code is my own. I have a very old habit of using "the bad kind" of Hungarian from my FoxPro days (which had weak typing and unusual scoping) — a habit I've only recently kicked.
It's hard — it means accepting an inconsistent style in your code base. It was only a week ago I finally said "screw it" and began a parameter name without the letter "p". The cognitive dissonance I initially felt has given way to a feeling of liberty. The world did not come to an end.
The way I've been going about this problem is changing one variable at a time as I come across them, then perform more sweeping changes when you come back to do more in-depth changes. If you're anything like me, the different nomenclature of your variables will drive you bat-shiat crazy for a while, but you'll slowly become used to it. The key is to chip away at it a little bit at a time until you have everything to where it needs to be.
Alternatively, you could jettison your variables altogether and just have every function return 42.
It sounds to me like the bigger problem is that 200-method God Object class. I'd suggest that refactoring just to remove the Hungarian notation is a low-value, high-risk activity in of itself. Unless there's a copious set of automated unit tests around that class to give you some confidence in your refactoring, I think you should leave it well and truly alone.
I guess it's unlikely that such a set of tests exists, because a developer following TDD practices would (hopefully) have naturally avoided building a god object in the first place - it would be very difficult to write comprehensive tests for.
Eliminating the god object and getting a unit test base in place is of higher value, however. My advice would be to look for opportunities to refactor the class itself - perhaps when a suitable business requirement/change comes along that necessitates a change to that code (and thus hopefully comes with some system & regression testing bought and paid for). You might not be able to justify the effort of refactoring the whole thing in one go, but you can do it piece by piece as the opportunity comes along, and test-drive the changes. In this way you can slowly convert the spaghetti code into a cleaner code base with comprehensive unit tests, bit by bit.
And you can eliminate the Hungarian as you go, if you like.
I am actually doing the same thing here for an application extension. My approach has been to use VIM mappings to search for specific Hungarian notation prefixes and then delete them and fix capitalization as appropriate.
Examples (goes in vimrc):
"" Hungarian notation conversion helpers
"" get rid of str prefixes and fix caps e.g. strName -> name
map ,bs /\Wstr[A-Z]^Ml3x~
map ,bi /\Wint[A-Z]^Ml3x~
"" little more complex to clean up m_p type class variables
map ,bm /\Wm_p\?[A-Z]^M:.s/\(\W\)m_p\?/\1_/^M/\W_[A-Z]^Mll~
map ,bp /\Wp[A-Z]^Mlx~
If you're gonna break code just for the sake of refactoring, I would seriously consider leaving i alone, specially, if you are going to affect other people in your team who may be depending on that code.
If your team is OK with this refactoring, and investing your time in doing this (which may be a time-saver in the future, if it means the code is more readable/maintainable), use Visual Studio (or whatever IDE you are using) to help you refactor the code.
However, if a big change like this is not a risk your team/boss is willing to take, I would suggest a somewhat unorthodox, half-way approach. Instead of doing all your refactoring in a single sweep, why not refactor sections of code (more specifically, functions) that need to be touched during normal maintenance? Over time, this slow refactoring will bring the code up to a cleaner state, at which point you can finish the refactoring process with a final sweep.
Use this java tool to remove HN:
Or just use "replace"/"replace all" with regex like below to replace "c_strX" to "x":
I love Hungarian notation. Don't understand why you would want to get rid of it.
I have this:
SolutionName: Foo.sln
Assembly:
Foo.Bar
Namespaces are:
Foo.Bar.Views
Foo.Bar.Model
Foo.Bar.BusinessObjects
Foo.Bar.Services
Should the directory structure be like this?
__Foo/Foo.Bar/Foo.Bar.View__ or __Foo/Bar/View__
If you keep the Visual Studio option of "Automatic Namespaces" you would need to have Foo/Bar/Views. Since this is the default behavior of Visual Studio people will be most used to this. Plus it keeps your folder names/paths from getting excessively long.
This is entirely personal preference. I would choose the latter.
Ask yourself the question, "Am I adding any useful information by repeating Foo and Bar in the sub-folders?" The answer here, in my opinion, is no, simply because the information is redundant. You've also created yourself a maintenance problem; if you need to rename Bar you now have to rename Foo.Bar, Foo.Bar.View, Foo.Bar.Model ...
Well, it can be anything you wish. Either are valid, but the former might get a little redundant and lead to directory hierarchies which are a little hard on the eyes/prohibitive.
Foo/Bar/View seems to be natural. Also MSVS tends to map solution folders to namespaces (i.e. if you add Abc folder to your solution each class you add to this folder will be in root_namespace.Abc namespace)
Foo/Bar/View seems a better choice, more if individual files are named as the individual types (e.g. Foo.Bar.View.IView => Foo/Bar/View/IView.cs).
That's a great pattern to follow, which makes it easier to find types, scripting over sources, do some metrics, etc.