Comment by KolmogorovComp
1 year ago
> Although the worklet was running on a worker thread, it didn't have a WorkerGlobalScope - it had a WorkletGlobalScope.
It took me a while to see these were different, I thought it was a wrong copy-paste.
Naming things is hard, but this is a bad convention. Always put the changing bits at the beginning preferably, or the end otherwise, but never in the middle, especially when it's subtle in a rather verbose name.
The changing bit is at the beginning, unless I misunderstand you.
Worker and Worklet are primitives, you can't really split them up. You can't have a LetWorkGlobalScope and an ErWorkGlobalScope, so WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope is the best you can do.
That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back at WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope again.
> That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back at WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope again.
I wouldn't necessarily call "GlobalScopeForWorker" more clunky than "WorkerGlobalScope", just a bit longer, but also more descriptive.
Using the languages namespacing features might also make it more obvious, e.g. "Worker::GlobalScope" and "Worklet::GlobalScope" or the inverted version "GlobalScope::{Worker,Worklet}".
Looking at it from a functional programming perspective, I also like approaches of the form "GlobalScopeFor({Worker,Worklet})", i.e. a function returning the respective thing.
Naming things is hard, but the possibilities are endless...
„Of” is underused in programming. It’s short, can appear standalone, as prefix, infix and suffix and it’s generic enough that it works in most contexts for types, type functions, functions, constructors, mappings etc.
1 reply →
> That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back at WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope again.
I've done this and it's always ended up biting me in the ass when I want to auto-complete and have 9 million "GlobalScope..." to chose from. Which is where "Work..." becomes handy.
On the other hand, it can be nice for other types of autocomplete usage. Say I know I'm looking for a GlobalScope, but I just don't know which one. Type "GlobalScope" and you get a nice list of everything prefixed with it. It's nice for things like Error enums, or similar usages. I know I'm looking for an Error, but I'm not sure of all the ones available to me.
Depending on your IDE and/or plugin used for autocomplete, you can usually type "worklet" and the symbols containing that substring will still be included in that list, even if it's at the end.
It seems to me that the problem was naming something Worklet when another thing called Worker already exists. I personally strive for unique class names when possible.
But that decision was made long before OP started contributing to this project.
I think they mean that the change is at the end of the first word in the Variable. i.e, Worker vs. Worklet instead of Worker vs. TinyWorker?
Doesn't make too much sense to me, but I think that's what they are saying.
That seems reasonable. I understand Worker and Worklet are established concepts in the domain, though, so better to use those names than invent new terminology.
I think subconsciously I look to the end to find differences too. So maybe I'd prefer er/let to come last
When I joined my current team, I was surprised when I realized all of my co-workers were using the end of strings to verify their identity, when I was looking at the beginning of them. It was confusing: I'd be reading off random characters, and they'd be reading them aloud at the same time, and we'd all be saying different things.
3 replies →
This is no name confusion bug, the bug is whoever wrote the code simply didn’t consider enabling the functionality for worklets (maybe worklets weren’t even a thing when that particular piece of code came into existence), and the fix is to change WorkerGlobalScope to WorkerOrWorkletGlobalScope.
I don’t write code so that drive-by internet commenters looking at a random snippet always find it unmistakably clear in ten seconds, and I don’t expect anyone else to adhere to that standard.
These names come from the html spec: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#workerglobalscope https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#workletglobalscope
Chromium (and most other browser engines) will use the specification names for things like this. E.g. equivalent code in WebKit, and Gecko: https://github.com/WebKit/WebKit/blob/80c1e6d05e4679c08e3a6e... https://searchfox.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/worklet/Wor...
[dead]