.NET Controls naming convention

[Guest GraphiteCube]

Hello, I am new to .NET programming. There is a set of naming convention in Java, for example, methodName for method name, CONTNT for constants. I want to know if there is also a set of naming conventions for .NET controls, such as textbox, labels, data grid...etc?

Thank you very much! :)

[LightIdea]

You can name them anything you like. But having consistency is a great component.

Examples, for labels I use LBL_#CONTROL# and text boxes TXT_#CONTROL#

Just simple things like that, and if you have a tabbed or multi-window application, you can use something like LBL_TB2_#CONTROL# for a label on the second tab.

Thats how I roll anyway.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

lblLabelName, txtTextBoxName, etc.

I picked it up when using VB6 and now I can't stop using that format with anything I do.

[Guest GraphiteCube]

Thanks for replies, but... Have Microsoft published a set of recommendations/ suggestions/ standards on naming convention? Or at least a well-known/ well-accepted standard?

[svnO.o]

The way I was taught in college is something like textBoxUserName (for a textbox control) but I completely ignored it. Instead I just use Hungarian notation which is a lot faster yet still easy to interpret. Hungarian notion is simply stuff like lblName for a label, txtName for a textbox, cboName for a combobox, lstName for a listbox, etc... That's a pretty common practice. As for non .NET control naming conventions there's a little guide on MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/xz...28VS.71%29.aspx

This site: http://www.anticipatingminds.com/Content/p...wledgePack.aspx which references that MSDN page seems to suggest that you add the name of the control at the end of the field name. For example, a textbox for a person's first name would be "firstNameTextBox". To me that seems ridiculous as it is extra typing and simple 3 letter abbreviations seem to work perfectly fine.

Edited June 17, 2009 by dlegend

[garethevans1986]

labelLabelName and textboxTextboxName

GE

[+Biscuits Brown MVC]

We name our UI controls to be as self documenting as any other variable. The only exception is that they are prefixed with 'ux' indicating they are part of the user experience. We toyed with 'ui' but it didn't look as good depending on the rest of the control name. So if I had a textbox fir a user first name and property to hold the value, I might have something like uxFirstName.Text = myCLass.FirstName. We never use the control type in the control name anymore except in cases of lists and grids and even in those cases, the control name indicates the data, not the control such as uxStateList (combo) or uxMemberClaimsGird (datagridview). The benefit of the 'ux' prefix is that all controls are listed in inteillisense together.

[sbauer]

Systems Hungarian Notation has really fallen out of favor now. Microsoft officially recommends that you shouldn't use it.

  Quote

Do choose easily readable identifier names. For example, a property named HorizontalAlignment is more readable in English than AlignmentHorizontal.

Do favor readability over brevity. The property name CanScrollHorizontally is better than ScrollableX (an obscure reference to the X-axis).

Do not use underscores, hyphens, or any other nonalphanumeric characters.

Do not use Hungarian notation.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229045.aspx

[jakem1]

  sbauer said:

Systems Hungarian Notation has really fallen out of favor now. Microsoft officially recommends that you shouldn't use it.

Yes, I've heard this as well but I still prefer to use it. Does anyone know why it's not recommended? I think it's simple and effective.

[James Rose]

I have been using a dirivative of the Hungarian for over a dozen years. Can someone explain the logic on why this format should not be used?

After all, looking at txtFirstName, strFirstName give more info and context that just FirstName. If I am reviewing code and see FirstName how am I to know, on sight, if that is a variable, a control or a function?

[sbauer]

  jakem1 said:

Yes, I've heard this as well but I still prefer to use it. Does anyone know why it's not recommended? I think it's simple and effective.

It's a form of commenting and comments lie. It's just redundant.

To be honest, I've never understood the love affair with Hungarian notation and .net. Why do you think it's simple and effective?

[scumdogmillionaire]

I use the same as garethevans1986

In Delphi I used hungarian. In C# I use things like textBoxFirstName, checkBoxRememberPassword

I basically just delete the number that gets suffixed on the end of the new control and replace it with the text. It makes for some long control names, but I know exactly what something is.

Unfortunatley the design guidelines don't include control naming, so you're stuck coming up with your own.

[sbauer]

  jameswjrose said:

After all, looking at txtFirstName, strFirstName give more info and context that just FirstName. If I am reviewing code and see FirstName how am I to know, on sight, if that is a variable, a control or a function?

FirstName would be a horrible name for a method. It doesn't even have a verb in it.

[jakem1]

  sbauer said:

It's a form of commenting and comments lie. It's just redundant.

To be honest, I've never understood the love affair with Hungarian notation and .net. Why do you think it's simple and effective?

If I see a control called txtFirstName I instantly know that it's a textbox that is used to store first names. I can also use the same notation for variables (e.g. strFirstName is a string used to store first names) which makes my code self documenting and easy to read/write. That's what I like about it.

Out of interest, what do you use?

[sbauer]

  jakem1 said:

If I see a control called txtFirstName I instantly know that it's a textbox that is used to store first names. I can also use the same notation for variables (e.g. strFirstName is a string used to store first names) which makes my code self documenting and easy to read/write. That's what I like about it.

This is what I'm talking about. Completely redundant. strFirstName? Yeah, of course it's a string. It's a first name. What else could it be? It's not going to be a bool. It's not going to be an int.

Descriptive variable names that reveal intent will often save you from the redundancy that is Hungarian notation (and bad code commenting in general).

  Quote

Out of interest, what do you use?

Variable names that reveal intent. That's all.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Ehh?

First you say it's bad, then it's good, or am I just confused? ("strFirstName" is Hungarian notation)

[sbauer]

  The_Decryptor said:

Ehh?

First you say it's bad, then it's good, or am I just confused? ("strFirstName" is Hungarian notation)

I'm saying it's bad. I'm saying strFirstName is bad.

  Quote

This is what I'm talking about. Completely redundant. strFirstName? Yeah, of course it's a string. It's a first name. What else could it be? It's not going to be a bool. It's not going to be an int.

[jakem1]

  sbauer said:

This is what I'm talking about. Completely redundant. strFirstName? Yeah, of course it's a string. It's a first name. What else could it be? It's not going to be a bool. It's not going to be an int.

Descriptive variable names that reveal intent will often save you from the redundancy that is Hungarian notation (and bad code commenting in general).

strFirstName may be a bad example because first name is going to be a string. What about a user ID? It could be a string or an integer for example. strUserID or intUserID works perfectly and reveals usage and intent.

Why are you being so obtuse? At the end of the day this all just comes down to personal/team preference. There are no rules as long as the solution you choose is logical and meaningful. I'm happy to put up with a couple of strFirstName type names to make the most of an intUserID.

[Mike]

  sbauer said:

This is what I'm talking about. Completely redundant. strFirstName? Yeah, of course it's a string. It's a first name. What else could it be? It's not going to be a bool. It's not going to be an int.

Descriptive variable names that reveal intent will often save you from the redundancy that is Hungarian notation (and bad code commenting in general).

The 'str' is not redundant, it is there to show it's a string and not a control eg edFirstName would be an edit control.

[sbauer]

  jakem1 said:

strFirstName may be a bad example because first name is going to be a string. What about a user ID? It could be a string or an integer for example. strUserID or intUserID works perfectly and reveals usage and intent.

1) Once I realize the standard, I would never need to carry the baggage around throughout the entire application.

User user = new User();

user.strUserID = "B192" <-- ugly.

Or 2) I would put my mouse over the variable name.

Or 3) Develop a standard where UserID = int/guid, UserNumber = string

Seriously, though, you're going to add a ton of extra baggage to your code just so you can see what type the ID is without having to think?

  Quote

Why are you being so obtuse? At the end of the day this all just comes down to personal/team preference. There are no rules as long as the solution you choose is logical and meaningful. I'm happy to put up with a couple of strFirstName type names to make the most of an intUserID.

I'm not being obtuse. The original poster asked for advice, and he got a lot of advice that I didn't agree with. Therefore, I'm going to share my opinion. My opinion isn't completely different. Microsoft, Robert Martin (author of Clean Code), and Linus Torvalds all share the same opinion when in comes to Systems Hungarian notation.

I realize it's a team preference. My team used sourcesafe before I came. That, like this, was a team preference, but it certainly wasn't the best option.

[sbauer]

  Mike said:

The 'str' is not redundant, it is there to show it's a string and not a control eg edFirstName would be an edit control.

Why do you even use IDEs? Use App Hungarian notation for the ui components, but don't pollute other stuff. Or what purpose is the strFirstName serving as a private field within the page or ui form?

[Andre S. Veteran]

One problem with hungarian notation is that if someone needs to change the type of a variable, he also needs to change its name across all the code that uses it, and this is error-prone.

[Mike]

  sbauer said:

Why do you even use IDEs? Use App Hungarian notation for the ui components, but don't pollute other stuff. Or what purpose is the strFirstName serving as a private field within the page or ui form?

I use IDEs to make the building process easier and so I don't need to manually add new files to be built etc.

The whole 'hover over a variable to see what type it is' is a bad idea. Why? Because it means you (personally) don't know what the variable type is.

The strFirstName variable could be the result of a simple edFirstName->GetText() call and the resultant string could be used to show a message or whatever. If you just had FirstName for the edit control, what would the variable be called that took the string?

[sbauer]

  Mike said:

The whole 'hover over a variable to see what type it is' is a bad idea. Why? Because it means you (personally) don't know what the variable type is.

That doesn't make any sense. You don't know the type either. You're just guessing the type is the same as the prefix. The prefix is a comment. That's all it is. If someone changed the type on you without refactoring the variable name, you'd be wrong.

  Mike said:

The strFirstName variable could be the result of a simple edFirstName->GetText() call and the resultant string could be used to show a message or whatever. If you just had FirstName for the edit control, what would the variable be called that took the string?

Fine. Break out the Apps Hungarian notation, and prefix all the controls with a ui prefix. string firstName = uiFirstName.Text. That's an OK standard. I would never pollute my code with the typical Systems Hungarian notation crap, though.

Edited June 17, 2009 by sbauer

[Mike]

  sbauer said:

That doesn't make any sense. You don't know the type either. You're just guessing the type is the same as the prefix. The prefix is a comment. That's all it is. If someone changed the type on you without refactoring the variable name, you'd be wrong.

No i'm not guessing, the prefixes are chosen for a reason. They aren't just some random letters. If someone did change the type and didn't change the prefix they would end up with a sore backside.

  sbauer said:

Fine. Break out the Apps Hungarian notation, and prefix all the controls with a ui prefix. string firstName = uiFirstName.Text. I would never pollute my code with the typical Systems Hungarian notation crap.

The 'ui' prefix doesn't help with distinguishing the type. It's a similar case with prefixing global variables so you know that if you change it some place, it won't just be your code that is affected.

[sbauer]

  Mike said:

No i'm not guessing, the prefixes are chosen for a reason. They aren't just some random letters. If someone did change the type and didn't change the prefix they would end up with a sore backside.

I know they're not some random letters. I get the concept. I just don't believe in it. I think the investment is not worth what you get back.

  Quote

The 'ui' prefix doesn't help with distinguishing the type. It's a similar case with prefixing global variables so you know that if you change it some place, it won't just be your code that is affected.

Yeah, I don't care about that either. I don't want type information in my variable names. It's unnecessary and wasn't what Hungarian notation was designed to be.