in reply to CamelCase really that bad?

What do you mean by CamelCase, can you be more specific?

camelCase is terrible for package names

CamelCase is terrible for method names

camelCase is fine for method names, its the standard camel case

CamelCase is fine for package/module names, its the standard

...

See what I mean?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: CamelCase really that bad?
by gzartman (Novice) on Aug 23, 2016 at 01:37 UTC
    I'm using:

    Package name = CamelCase
    Method name = camelCase
    Var name = camelCase (prefer single word if possible)

    Sounds like I'm fine.
[reply]
Re^2: CamelCase really that bad?
by zwon (Abbot) on Aug 23, 2016 at 21:06 UTC
    I think "the standard" is a bit too strong of a statement. Package names are supposed to be capitalized, so yes CamelCase is something generally expected, but as for method names I don't see how camelCase is better than CamelCase, both are used, although snake_case is something I see much more often in Perl code.
[reply]

      I think "the standard" is a bit too strong of a statement.

      You're over thinking it :)

      Package names are supposed to be capitalized, so yes CamelCase is something generally expected,

      Also know as the standard convention

      but as for method names I don't see how camelCase is better than CamelCase, both are used, although snake_case is something I see much more often in Perl code.

      Do more research :)

      You see one used more than the other, so one is the standard camelCase

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_convention_%28programming%29

[reply]
        You see one used more than the other, so one is the standard camelCase

        After spending a lot of time on research (maybe even 5 minutes), I couldn't actually remember/find a single module that uses any camel case. So I guess the standard is not to use it ;)

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom