Best way to get rid of hungarian notation?

问题:

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?

回答1:

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.

回答2:

Just leave it alone. There are better uses of your time.

回答3:

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.

回答4:

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....

回答5:

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) (-:

回答6:

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)

回答7:

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.

回答8:

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.

回答9:

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.

回答10:

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!

回答11:

Only change it when you directly use it. And make sure you have a testbench ready to apply to ensure it still works.

回答12:

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.

回答13:

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.

回答14:

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.

回答15:

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.

回答16:

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.

回答17:

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~

回答18:

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.

回答19:

Use this java tool to remove HN:

Or just use "replace"/"replace all" with regex like below to replace "c_strX" to "x":

回答20:

I love Hungarian notation. Don't understand why you would want to get rid of it.