Should we still be using the "file" convention?

Josh Susser has brought up an interesting point on his blog regarding file and naming conventions of projects. Josh uses the Makefile as the beginning example and points out that we’re past the point where we need to worry about being limited to 8 characters in filenames. Further, file names like Capfile, Gemfile, etc. are not very descriptive. He says:

Just because your configuration file’s contents are written in a DSL does not mean you should pretend it’s not Ruby anymore.

Personally, I agree with Mr. Susser on every point except the Rakefile, since the original intention of rake is to be Ruby’s version of make. However, rake does support the Rakefile.rb convention as well as a couple of variants. What do you think? Let us know in the comments.

Treehouse

Our mission is to bring affordable Technology education to people everywhere, in order to help them achieve their dreams and change the world.

Comments

One comment on “Should we still be using the "file" convention?

  1. Gemfile is about as simple as you could get – its a file with gems in it, can’t see the problem there. Foreman’s Procfile is also fairly succinct as well. My biggest issue with it is that text editors don’t always auto detect it the syntax encoding!