Jeremy Brown (4/30/2014)

---

I find more often than not, people go overboard on naming standards (in my honest and humble opinion).

I know I'm probably going to catch a lot of flames for this, but, naming standards that include things like the object type seem senseless to me. Each object in SQL Server has relevant metadata that accurately describes what the object type is (among other things).

I'm more a fan of the simple rule that code should be self-describing. In other words, entity names should accurately represent what entity is being maintained. Executable code should describe the function or behavior performed (more or less).

The "naming standard" should establish the common language usage for these things. For example, functional code that "gets" things from the database should begin with "get". In other words, its an agreement between the developers that we use these common words to describe the action performed. Likewise anything that commits something should be "put" or "write". Choose whatever verbs you like, but make is sensible.

In other words, make it lightweight. Easy enough that can be generate -able in code, but not so difficult that it takes a maintenance programmer a degree in quantum physics to be able to understand.