Anonymous Methods: Now that's a dumb name!

This has always bothered me and I've never quite put my finger on it until now.

I love anonymous methods (in .net 2.0+). I've over used them, sure. I've under used them, too. And I've gotten all too excited about them.

But the name is so very wrong. It puts the emphasis in all the wrong places. Anonymous, hey? Well what've they got to hide?

Consider this chunk of code:

Dim Result as Integer = Math.Sqrt(16)

What is '16' in the above snippet?

Well, it's a value. And it gets passed to a parameter. Simple. But a different answer we could give -- if we wanted to bamboozle people right at the start -- would be:

"Well in this case '16' is an anonymous variable."

A what? A huh? A... well.. you're just trying to sound clever aren't you?

Calling it an 'anonymous variable' is only useful if you are the damn fool who's stuck with the job of writing a compiler for the underlying language. It doesn't help the regular johnny coders like you and me who code in the damn language every day. (unless the build is broken that day of course.) (or there are too many meetings that day.) (or the keyboards are wrong.)

Similarly -- an 'anonymous method' is really just a 'code block', or an 'immediate method', or an 'inline method.'

The point isn't that it is anonymous, the point is that it's a method.

Maybe the term could be "throwaway method" -- as in, it's a method that's not designed for re-use. You just use it in this one place and then throw it away.

Ah, rant complete.

anonymous variable! very funny!

every line of code could also be called an anonymous statement.

regarding msdn subscription maybe u need 2 find a dodgy russian to help u out

Anonymous means "without name". What's wrong with that? Regular functions are chunks of code with a name. Anonymous functions are chunks of code without name. I don't see anything wrong in that denomination.

Ah - good point.

Select queries in SQL could be said to return "Anonymous Tables"

@The Other Guy

>"Regular functions are chunks of
>code with a name"

Maybe regular functions should be called "Named Functions" and 'anonymous functions' just called 'functions'.

The better term is likely something more like either "in-line method" or "temporary method" but sadly we are stuck with "anonymous methods" for good now.

Cat == out of bag, Genie == out of bottle, Pandora's box == opened :)

"Well in this case '16' is an anonymous variable."

I think of it as an integer of value 16. There's nothing anonymous about it in my (admittedly warped) brain.

And I don't really have a problem calling it an anonymous method. Consider what the fundamental difference is between these and regular methods. It's not that they are inline (regular methods can be too), immediate (they're not) or a code block (like all fns), it's that they have no defined name.

You can always call 'em lambdas... :)

Anyways, as always, thanks for making me think but I'm sticking with "anonymous methods"!

kinda late in the game to be ranting about that, I agree with the other guy

'Anonymous means "without name". What's wrong with that?'

yeh alright -- i'll concede on this one. Anonymous methods *is* a good enough name.

Another possibility i've come up with is "ad-hoc methods"

How do you feel about "function expressions" or "function literals"?

Those are the terms that I typically use when I am explaining to someone what an "anonymous method" is. You can substitute "method" for "function" if you like, but I prefer "function".

Ditto on "function literal" or "method literal".

You don't call character literals anything else do you?

Anonymous Methods: Now that's a dumb name!

Articles

Downloads

Twitter, baby

Recommended Reading

Recommended blogs

Aggregated Links

Human Link Machines