A Guide to Naming Variables

The primary reason to give variables meaningful names is so that a human can understand them. Code written strictly for a computer could just as well have meaningless, auto-generated names. (Note this code example is used for illustrative purposes only and is not meant to be an example of well-designed code, variable names notwithstanding.):

int f1(int a1, List<Integer> a2)
{
  int a5 = 0;
  for (int a3 = 0; a3 < a2.size() && a3 < a1; a3++) {
    int a6 = a2.get(a3);
    if (a6 >= 0) {
      System.out.println(a6 + " ");
    } else {
      a5++;
    }
  }
  System.out.println("\n");
  return a5;
}

All engineers would recognize the above code is needlessly difficult to understand, as it violates two common guidelines: don't abbreviate, and give meaningful names. Perhaps surprisingly, these guidelines can be counter-productive. Abbreviation isn't always bad, as will be discussed later. And meaningful is vague and subject to interpretation. Some engineers think it means that names should always be verbose (such as MultiDictionaryLanguageProcessorOutput). Others find the prospect of coming up with truly meaningful names daunting, and give up before putting in much effort. Thus, even when trying to follow the above two rules, a coder might write:

int processElements(int numResults, List<Integer> list)
{
  int result = 0;
  for (int count = 0; count < list.size() && count < numResults; count++) {
    int num = list.get(count);
    if (num >= 0) {
      System.out.println(num + " ");
    } else {
      result++;
    }
  }
  System.out.println("\n");
  return result;
}

Reviewers could, with effort, understand the above code more easily than the first example. The variable names are accurate and readable. But they're unhelpful and waste space, because:

processElements

most code "processes" things (after all, code runs on a "processor"), so process is seven wasted characters that mean nothing more that "compute". Elements isn't much better. While suggestive that the function is going to operate on the list, that much was already obvious. There's even a bug in the code that this name doesn't help the reader spot.

numResults

most code produces "results" (eventually); so, as with process, Results is seven wasted characters. The full variable name, numResults is suggestive that it might be intended to limit the amount of output, but is vague enough to impose a mental tax on the reader.

list

wastes space; it's obvious that it's a list because the previous tokens were List<Integer>.

num

simply recapitulates the type of the object (int)

result, count

are coding cliches; as with numResults they waste space and are so generic they don't help the reader understand the code.

However, keep in mind the true purpose of variable names: the reader is trying to understand the code, which requires both of the following:

1. What was the coder's intent?
2. What does the code actually do?

To see how the longer variable names that this example used are actually a mental tax on the reader, here's a re-write of the function showing what meaning a reader would actually glean from those names:

int doSomethingWithListElements(int numberOfResults, 
                                List<Integer> integerList)
{
  int resultToReturn = 0;
  for (int variableThatCountsUp = 0; 
       variableThatCountsUp < integerList.size() 
         && variableThatCountsUp < numberOfResults; 
       variableThatCountsUp++) {
    int integerFromList = integerList.get(count);
    if (integerFromList >= 0) {
      System.out.println(integerFromList + " ");
    } else {
      resultToReturn++;
    }
  }
  System.out.println("\n");
  return resultToReturn;
}

The naming changes have almost made the code worse than the auto-generated names, which, at least, were short. This rewrite shows that coder's intent is still mysterious, and there are now more characters for the reader to scan. Code reviewers review a lot of code; poor names make a hard job even harder. How do we make code reviewing less taxing?

There are two taxes on code reviewers' mental endurance: distance and boilerplate. Distance, in the case of variables, refers to how far away a reviewer has to scan, visually, in order to remind themselves what a variable does. Reviewers lack the context that coders had in mind when they wrote the code; reviewers must reconstruct that context on the fly. Reviewers need to do this quickly; it isn't worth spending as much time reviewing code as it took to write it (there are obvious exceptions such as nuclear power plant control rod algorithms, distributed locking protocols, and so forth). Good variable names eliminate the problem of distance because they remind the reviewer of their purpose. That way they don't have to scan back to an earlier part of the code.

The other tax is boilerplate. Code is often doing something complicated; it was written by someone else; reviewers are often context-switching from their own code; they review a lot of code, every day, and may have been reviewing code for many years. Given all this, reviewers struggle to maintain focus during code reviews. Thus, every useless character drains the effectiveness of code reviewing. In any one small example, it's not a big deal for code to be unclear. Code reviewers can figure out what almost any code does, given enough time and energy (perhaps with some follow-up questions to the coder). But they can't afford to do that over and over again, year in and year out. It's death by 1,000 cuts.

So, to communicate intent to the code reviewer, with a minimum of characters, the coder could rewrite the code as follows:

int printFirstNPositive(int n, List<Integer> l)
{
  int skipped = 0;
  for (int i = 0; i < l.size() && i < n; i++) {
    int maybePositive = l.get(i);
    if (maybePositive >= 0) {
      System.out.println(maybePositive + " ");
    } else {
      skipped++;
    }
  }
  System.out.println("\n");
  return skipped;
}

Let's analyze each variable name change to see why they make the code easier to read and understand:

printFirstNPositive

unlike processElements, it's now clear what the coder intended this function to do (and there's a fighting chance of noticing a bug)

n

obvious given the name of the function, no need for a more complicated name

l

list wasn't worth the mental tax it imposed, so at least trim it by 4 characters to save the reader the mental tax of scanning boilerplate characters; since the function is short, and there's only one list involved, it's easy to remember that l is a list of integers

skipped

unlike results, now self-documents (without a comment) what the return value is supposed to be. Since this is a short function, and the declaration of skipped as an int is plain to see, calling it numSkipped would have just wasted 3 characters

i

iterating through a for loop using i is a well-established idiom that everyone instantly understands. Give that count was useless anyway, i is preferable since it saves 4 characters

maybePositive

num just meant the same thing int did, whereas maybePositive is hard to misunderstand and may help one spot a bug

It's also easier, now, to see there are two bugs in the code. In the original version of the code, it wasn't clear if that the coder intended to only print positive integers. Now the reader can notice that there's a bug, because zero isn't positive (so n should be greater than 0, not greater-than-or-equals). (There should also be unit tests). Furthermore, because the first argument is now called maxToPrint (as opposed to, say, maxToConsider), it's clear the function won't always print enough elements if there are any non-positive integers in the list. Rewriting the function correctly is left as an exercise for the reader.

• As coders our job is to communicate to human readers, not computers.
• Don't make me think. Names should communicate the coder's intent so the reader doesn't have to try to figure it out.
• Code reviews are essential but mentally taxing. Boilerplate must be minimized, because it drains reviewers' ability to concentrate on the code.
• We prefer good names over comments but can't replace all comments.

Putting the type of the variable in the name of the variable imposes a mental tax on the reader (more boilerplate to scan over) and is often a poor substitute for thinking of a better name. Modern editors like Eclipse are also good at surfacing the type of a variable easily, making it redundant to add the type into the name itself. This practice also invites being wrong; I have seen code like this:

Set<Host> hostList = hostSvc.getHosts(zone);

The most common mistakes are to append Str or String to the name, or to include the type of list in the name. Here are some suggestions:

More generally:

• Pluralize the variable name instead of including the name of a collection type

• If you're tempted to add a scalar type (int, String, Char) into your variable name, you should either:

  • Explain better what the variable is
  • Explain what transformation you did to derive the new variable (lowercased?)

Most names should be Teutonic, following the spirit of languages like Norwegian, rather than the elliptical vagueness of Romance languages like English. Norwegian has more words like tannlege (literally "tooth doctor") and sykehus (literally "sick house"), and fewer words like dentist and hospital (which don't break down into other English words, and are thus confusing unless you already know their meaning). You should strive to name your variables in the Teutonic spirit: straightforward to understand with minimal prior knowledge.

Another way to think about Teutonic naming is to be as specific as possible without being incorrect. For example, if a function is hard-coded to only check for CPU overload, then name it overloadedCPUFinder, not unhealthyHostFinder. While it may be used to find unhealthy hosts, unhealthyHostFinder makes it sound more generic that it actually is.

// GOOD
Set<Host> overloadedCPUs = hostStatsTable.search(overCPUUtilizationThreshold);
// BAD
Set<Host> matches = hostStatsTable.search(criteria);

// GOOD
List<String> lowercasedNames = people.apply(Transformers.toLowerCase());
// BAD
List<String> newstrs = people.apply(Transformers.toLowerCase());

// GOOD
Set<Host> findUnhealthyHosts(Set<Host> droplets) {  }
// BAD
Set<Host> processHosts(Set<Host> hosts) {  }

The exceptions to the Teutonic naming convention are covered later on in this section: idioms and short variable names.

It's also worth noting that this section isn't suggesting to never use generic names. Code that is doing something truly generic should have a generic name. For example, transform in the below example is valid because it's part of a generic string manipulation library:

class StringTransformer {
  String transform(String input, TransformerChain additionalTransformers);
}

As illustrated earlier, variable names cannot (and should not) replace all comments. But if a short comment can fit into the variable name, that's probably where it should go. This is because:

• It's less visual clutter for the code reviewer to wade through (comments are a mental tax, so should provide true value)
• If a variable is used a long distance from the comment, the code reviewer doesn't have to break their focus and scroll back to the comment to understand the variable

For example,

// BAD
String name; // First and last name
// GOOD
String fullName;

// BAD
int port; // TCP port number
// GOOD
int tcpPort;

// BAD
// This is derived from the JSON header
String authCode;
// GOOD
String jsonHeaderAuthCode;

In addition to not being Teutonic, the following variable names have been so horribly abused over the years that they should never be used, ever.

• val, value
• result, res, retval
• tmp, temp
• count
• str

The moratorium on these names extends to variations that just add in a type name (not a good idea anyway), such as tempString, or intStr, etc.

Update (April 2020): while I still agree with the spirit of this particular piece of advice, I've softened my stance on this. Pragmatically, sometimes those names are the best you're going to get given schedule pressures, etc.

Unlike the cliches, there are some idioms that are so widely-understood and unabused that they're safe to use, even if by the letter of the law they're too cryptic. Some examples are (these are Java/C specific examples, but the same principles apply to all languages):

• use of i, j and k in straightforward for loops
• use of n for a limit/quantity when it's obvious what it would do
• use of e for an Exception in a catch clause

// OK
for (int i = 0; i < hosts.size(); i++) { }

// OK
String repeat(String s, int n);

Warning: idioms should only be used in cases where it's obvious what they mean.

Short names, even one-letter names, are preferable in certain circumstances. When reviewers see a long name, they tend to think they should pay attention to them, and then if the name turns out to be completely useless, they just wasted time. A short name can convey the idea that the only useful thing to know about the variable is its type. So it is okay to use short variable names (one- or two-letter), when both of the following are true:

1. The distance between declaration and use isn't great (say within 5 lines, so the declaration is within the reader's field of vision)
2. There isn't a better name for the variable than its type
3. The reader doesn't have too many other things to remember at that point in the code (remember, studies show people can remember about 7 things).

Here's an example:

void updateJVMs(HostService s, Filter obsoleteVersions)
{
  // 's' is only used once, and is "obviously" a HostService
  List<Host> hs = s.fetchHostsWithPackage(obsoleteVersions);
  // 'hs' is used only within field of vision of reader
  Workflow w = startUpdateWorkflow(hs);
  try {
    w.wait();
  } finally {
    w.close();
  }
}

You could also write:

void updateJVMs(HostSevice hostService, Filter obsoleteVersions)
{
  List<Host> hosts = hostService.fetchHostsWithPackage(obsoleteVersions);
  Workflow updateWorkflow = startUpdateWorkflow(hosts);
  try {
    updateWorkflow.wait();
  } finally {
    updateWorkflow.close();
  }
}

But this takes up more space with no real gain; the variables are all used so close to their source that the reader has no trouble keeping track of what they mean. Furthermore, the long name updateWorkflow signals to the reviewer that there's something significant about the name. The reviewer then loses mental energy determining that the name is just boilerplate. Not a big deal in this one case, but remember, code reviewing is all about death by 1,000 cuts.

One-time variables (OTVs), also known as garbage variables, are those variables used passively for intermediate results passed between functions. They sometimes serve a valid purpose (see the next cookbook items), but are often left in thoughtlessly, and just clutter up the codebase. In the following code fragment, the coder has just made the reader's life more difficult:

List<Host> results = hostService.fetchMatchingHosts(hostFilter);
return dropletFinder(results);

Instead, coders should make a pass through their code and simplify to:

return dropletFinder(hostService.fetchMatchingHosts(hostFilter));

Sometimes you need an OTV in order to break up a really long line:

List<Host> hs = hostService.fetchMatchingHosts(hostFilter);
return DropletFinderFactoryFactory().getFactory().getFinder(region).dropletFinder(hs);

This is ok, although since the distance is so short, you can give the OTV and one- or two-letter name (hs) to save visual clutter.

It can be difficult to read code like this:

return hostUpdater.updateJVM(hostService.fetchMatchingHosts(hostFilter),
                             JVMServiceFactory.factory(region).getApprovedVersions(),
                             RegionFactory.factory(region).getZones());

So it's ok to write:

List<Host> hs = hostService.fetchMatchingHosts(hostFilter);
Set<JVMVersions> js = JVMServiceFactory.factory(region).getApprovedVersions(),
List<AvailabilityZone> zs = RegionFactory(region).getZones();
return hostUpdater.updateJVM(hs, js, zs);

Because the distances are all short and the meanings are all obvious, short names can be used.

Sometimes you need OTVs simply to explain what code is doing. For example, sometimes you have to use poorly-named code that someone else (ahem) wrote, so you can't fix the name. But you can use a meaningful OTV to explain what's going on. For example,

List<Column> pivotedColumns = olapCube.transformAlpha();
updateDisplay(pivotedColumns);

Note in this case you should not use a short OTV:

List<Column> ps = olapCube.transformAlpha();
updateDisplay(ps);

That just adds too much visual clutter without helping to explain the code sufficiently.