IndustryShould we still be using the "file" convention?

Treehouse
writes on December 8, 2011

Share with your friends










Submit

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.

One Response to “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!

Leave a Reply

Learn to code with Treehouse

Start your 14 day free trial today and get access to hundreds of video courses in web development, design and business!

Learn more