Separating a Hash type from Object

P T Withington ptw at pobox.com
Wed Jul 25 13:38:57 PDT 2007


On 2007-07-25, at 16:11 EDT, Lars T Hansen wrote:

> On 7/25/07, Brad Fults <bfults at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/25/07, Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.org> wrote:
>>> I can take maximum blame for advocating Dict over Dictionary, based
>>> on brevity and the Python type, transliterated appropriately
>>> (capitalized, I mean ;-).
>>>
>>> But Hash is just as good by that crude metric.
>>>
>>> We'll have another straw poll. Hash was mooted early on, but then
>>> Dictionary stuck, and later I urged brevity. Thanks for the  
>>> reminder.
>>
>> If it wasn't clear from the subject line of this thread, I also vote
>> for "Hash" over "Dict" for similar reasons to those already  
>> mentioned.
>
> The nice thing about "Dictionary" or "Dict" or "Map" is that it says
> something about functionality, whereas "Hash" or "HashMap" says
> something about implementation.  On the other hand, the interface is
> plainly hashcode-based, so it's possible it's only fair to emphasize
> that fact in the name.
>
> If so, I vote for "Hashtable": "Hash" is ugly and overly short;
> "HashMap" is BiCapitalized and "map" is less common than "table" in
> the context of hash structures.  (Java has both, unsurprisingly, and
> they are essentially the same, Hashtable being synchronized and
> HashMap not.)

If this is the poll:

  1. Map (because it maps one thing to another)
  2. Dictionary (not as good because it makes me think keys must be  
strings)
  3. Dict (dorky Unixese for an English word)
-°. Hash (only nerds would have a clue what this means)


More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list