TL;DR: Drop "collection" prefix for clarity.

Problems

• Redundant Naming

• Verbose Code

• Reduced Readability

• Refactoring Challenges

• Coupled to implementation

Solutions

1. Use Simple Names

2. Remove 'collection' from the name

3. Use plural names without the word 'collection'

Context

When you prefix properties with terms like "collection," you introduce redundancy and verbosity into your code.

This makes your code harder to read and maintain and adds unnecessary complexity.

Coupling the name to a collection implementation prevents you from introducing a proxy or middle object to manage the relation.

Sample Code

Wrong

struct Task {
    collection_of_subtasks: Vec<Subtask>,
    subtasks_collection: Vec<Subtask>,
}

impl Task {
    fn add_subtask(&mut self, subtask: Subtask) {
        self.collection_of_subtasks.push(subtask);
        self.subtasks_collection.push(subtask);
    }
}

Right

struct Task {
    subtasks: Vec<Subtask>,
}

impl Task {
    fn add_subtask(&mut self, subtask: Subtask) {
        self.subtasks.push(subtask);
    }
}

Detection

[X] Automatic

You can add rules to your linter preventing these redundant names.

Tags

• Naming

Level

[X] Beginner

AI Generation

AI code generators produce this smell if they try to over-describe property names.

They tend to generate overly verbose names to be explicit, which can lead to redundancy.

AI Detection

AI tools can fix this smell if you instruct them to simplify property names. They can refactor your code to use more concise and clear names.

Conclusion

Simplifying property names by removing prefixes like "collection" leads to more readable and maintainable code.

It would be best to focus on clear, direct names that communicate the purpose without redundancy.

Relations

More Info

Disclaimer

Code Smells are my opinion.

Credits

Photo by Karen Vardazaryan on Unsplash

---

Good design adds value faster than it adds cost.

Thomas C. Gale

---

This article is part of the CodeSmell Series.