6 thoughts on “Naming is a Process, Part 6: Does the Right Thing to Intent”

  1. Arlo,

    I'm really enjoying this, but I think it would work better with more examples. In "ways to get nonsense", you talk about some pitfalls but they would resonate more with examples.

  2. Up until this point, the process was almost mechanical. The code tells you the structure it wants to have. But the step to Intent is risky. I hesitate here, and I think that's a good thing.

  3. Hi Arlo,

    I'm digging about this "Name Driven Design" topic. Your post is really brilliant. I learned a lot from it. Thanks.

    When reading this post, I think I can understand the basic idea here. But it's a little hard to follow the steps without any specific examples. If there was a repo, each commit doing one step, it'll be wonderful. Or maybe you can just leave a gist about the original version, everyone read this post can practice the naming and refactoring process.

    Any way, thank you for sharing this wonderful post.

    1. I hear you. I've heard others with the same request. I think it would make it better. And I'm likely to get to it at some point, but not immediately. I had the time and energy to get the first solid pass out & refine it a couple iterations, but not yet the time to create code samples for each step (there are samples for a couple, but not most). I would be happy to link to good samples that someone else created. Or I'll eventually get to samples of my own. But that'll happen after I get the last one in the series.

Leave a Reply to @ifyouseewendy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.