tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3237724005744642470.post1939816605266258692..comments2016-08-06T18:51:58.441+01:00Roger Hugheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07042290171112551665[email protected]Blogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3237724005744642470.post-417061522538026622012-05-21T14:03:29.049+01:002012-05-21T14:03:29.049+01:00Thanks for the comment. I quite agree that there’s nothing wrong with nounification or verbification after all spoken languages are versatile, dynamic entities. I’m really trying to point out that even if you have a rule like ‘the name of an object must be a noun’, it’s still possible to come up with bad names. <br /><br />Also, ‘Processor’ apart from being ‘a verb in noun’s clothing’ is a bad choice for a name mainly because it’s a <a href="/2011/09/weasel-words.html" rel="nofollow">weasel word</a> as it doesn’t reveal an <a href="/2012/05/clues-from-classification-naming-part-2.html" rel="nofollow">objects intent.</a>Roger Hugheshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07042290171112551665[email protected]tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3237724005744642470.post-88228660338383850472012-05-20T20:31:05.136+01:002012-05-20T20:31:05.136+01:00I find &quot;nounification&quot; no problem at all. The important thing is that one know it&#39;s about some &quot;thing&quot;, not &quot;doing some thing&quot;. Although the main purpose of a processor is processing, it&#39;s still an object so that we can change it&#39;s state, pass it around and remove it. It make no sense if one change, pass or delete &quot;a processing&quot;.Lê Ngọc Minhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05532630208236789477[email protected]