When I was taught to use CamelCase by my senior dev, he emphasized that capitalization should follow the camel case rules and not the normal English/abbreviation rules. Thus, in your example, I would be calling it HttpsSoapWsdlParser. Which, okay, fine, when I look at it is still not as readable as https_soap_wsdl_parser, so I guess you’re right, ignorance fought! – but it’s way more readable than the thing with caps that you gave!
(I still have to use camel case at work, but I think you’ve convinced me to use snake case out of work.)
Except for Celsius vs. Fahrenheit. I made this argument in another thread a couple years ago and had a fair amount of disagreement (not that things got too heated, heh). I still consider Fahrenheit better:
Celsius uses the freezing vs. the boiling point of water as its 0-100 scale. I understand the use of a real, unchanging physical quality on which to base a scale of measurement, but 0-100 is just not a very wide range in terms of a human scale of temperature.
For one thing, the freezing point is just not really very cold, especially to us Northerners. For winter temps in the North to constantly be below 0C just seems silly. 0 degrees Fahrenheit may be an arbitrary setting, but when it’s 0F outside, it’s cold.
For another thing, 0-100C vs. 32-212F means the difference between degrees is almost twice as much as with Fahrenheit. 2 degrees F is a big difference in temperature variation that can be easily felt. Celsius’ degree separation is too ‘chunky’.
Yep; no surprise that american spellings have been working their way into british english (which of course has accelerated in the “I can’t be bothered to change the language from English (US)” era).
Simpler, and bringing us back towards a more phonetic language.
Well 5, 10, 15F is still plenty freaking cold to most people, so the opposite criticism could apply.
Many thermostats just let you set the temperature in whole degrees, and I’ve never heard anyone complain and wish they could set it to 20.5 or whatever. I’m dubious that people really are that sensitive.
Why not metric note terminology? Both in beats per measure and divisions in the octave? If you’re getting rid of traditional English units, go all the way and get rid of traditional music terminology of half and quarter notes. Only twelve divisions per octave? Bah! Make it 100!
(Not totally serious, but why superiority for ten divisions for one but halving divisions for the other?)
The issue in music is that most humans find it pleasing to listen to small whole number ratios. Thus intervals like the fifth (3:2) and the octave (2:1) as well as divisions of the octave into 12, 19, 31, 53, etc. as a basis for tuning instruments. Not so much “ten divisions”, though.
There are “cents” but there are 1200 in an octave (12 x 100). It doesn’t really matter, point is that it is small enough that you usually cannot hear a 1-cent difference (therefore, e.g., “perfect fifths” of 700 cents instead of around 702, and other tricks)
Nobody is stopping you from writing any weird time signature (or no time signature) and tuplets you want
Also, there are various alternative notations possible:
RPN >> Infix It’s a means of performing operations on a calculator. I remember finding it a little confusing at first, but once I got used to it I never want to go back.
(For those who’ve never used it, an RPN calculator doesn’t have an ‘=’ key. To multiply 2 times 3, the sequence is ‘2’ ‘ENTER’ ‘3’ ‘x’)
May I suggest you check out the music of Harry Partch. Depending on your age and taste in music, you may have already heard some of it without realizing it.
Right, equal tempered tuning is a ‘least-worst’ compromise which gets fairly close to most of the harmonic ratios while allowing you to modulate into distant keys.
There are far worse sins in music notation. Right now, you can have two different instruments in a band, both producing tones with the same fundamental frequency, but where one musician calls that note “A” while the other calls it “B flat”.
And it turns out that 12 distinct notes in an octave is a pretty good case for reaching that good-enough compromise.
The argument for the other side is that musicians playing a transposing instrument are taught that a certain position in the staff corresponds to a particular fingering, even though a different pitch comes out when playing it on a clarinet in A versus a clarinet in Bb. That goes for the parts; you can compile the score in concert pitch if you want.
Maybe if you play a lot of instruments you tend to find it annoying, though— I agree with you, merely pointing out the rationale of transposing instruments.
That’s not so much a notation issue: it’s the whole concept of ‘transposing instruments’.
Presumably this had some practical purpose in the past, though it has always seemed a rather silly idea to me.
And it turns out that 12 distinct notes in an octave is a pretty good case for reaching that good-enough compromise. <<
Exactly. There are other divisions of the octave which are also fairly good approximations, but 12 steps seems to be the most convenient for most purposes.
Most convenient for Western music that needs to modulate into different keys, as you yourself said. I presume somebody playing Carnatic music or Gamelan music or whatever would have a different perspective where chopping up an octave into 12 more-or-less equal pieces would not be convenient at all.
Oh gracious, of course you can still PLAY them as much as you like (love grace notes ). It’s just the issue of what you should CALL them. They’re “64th notes”.
It’s not purely cultural, though, is the point. There are mathematical reasons for the 12-note octave. There are other mathematical arrangements that also work, and some cultures have chosen those, but no human musical tradition would ever settle on 10 even-tempered steps, or 15: If you’re going to have about that many, it’s going to be 12.
I’m occasionally mistaken for a veteran, because I use the NATO alphabet. I figured, if I make up a system myself, I’m likely to end up with some accidental soundalikes, and hey, someone’s already done the hard work for me, I might as well learn it.
). It’s just the issue of what you should CALL them. They’re “64th notes”.