Java naming conventions vs. C++/C naming conventions

Question

I am a Java developer who is starting to pick up more and more C++/C (yes I know they're different, bear with me). One thing that struck me as odd was the different naming conventions used by these languages. In Java, is is very common to see something like this:

int someVariable = someFunction(someParameterToPass);

However, in C++/C, it would look a bit different:

int some_variable = some_function(some_parameter_to_pass);

The reason I ask is because I (alone, no team) have just started a large project using C++, and right now am using Java naming conventions in my code (it's what I'm used to). But then I add in some external libraries to my code and it mixes the naming conventions together. I understand the code easily, and use the differences to tell my code apart from library code.

Should I switch my naming convention for the sake of readability to others (while the LOC is relatively low), or stick with what I'm doing now (since I am the only developer)?

Note - my code has been peer reviewed, however, the reviewers mainly focused on the function of the code. They didn't mention mixed conventions, and I did not specifically ask them about this. They also didn't have experience with switching naming conventions.

Answer 1

This is where you find the big issue with coding standards based on style - if your team doesn't write the entire codebase, then you're going to find you have mismatches with the other code's standard.

So, my advice is not to sweat it. As long as your code is clear, it really doesn't matter whether you use camel case, pascal case, or underscore style. Its more important that the code is readable.

You should never alter the style of the 3rd parties as that will make comparison with new versions impossible, so you have to stick with them. If you have 2 different-style libraries, you have no choice but to follow a standard that ignores code style. Its not that bad, if you're a good coder you can read any code style. If you're not, having a solitary style won't help you at all.

Answer 2

The naming convention that you cite is from the standard library. The naming convention is practical rather than prescriptive. That is, the standard library must introduce symbols in order to use the library. The standard library wants to limit those symbols to a fixed set so that developers using the library are not surprised when there may be a name collision.

The standard library has chosen to use all lower case names with underscore separators.

Your choice as a developer is to use that convention or another convention determined by you and your team. Using the same convention may read nicer, but can also cause name collisions (which are often resolved using namespaces, which can add to the noise in the code.)

The common C++ (non-standard library) convention is quite close to Java.

From your example, a C++ naming convention would typically use a capitalized function name and a capitalized class name. To extend your example:

int someVariable = SomeClass.SomeMethod(someParameterToPass);

Another difference is the JavaBeans convention of preceding method names with get, set, or is prefixes. Many C++ conventions use a similar convention. However, some groups prefer to use the ability of C++ to overload method names so that get and set have the same name but different signatures.

class Foo
{
public:
    Bar GetBar() const;
    void SetBar(const Bar& bar);
};

vs

class Foo
{
public:
    Bar Bar() const;
    void Bar(const Bar& bar);
};

Some groups prefer to not use overloading, preferring the former convention.