title: Naming conventions for abstract classes
body: <p>I distinctly remember that, at one time, the guideline pushed by Microsoft was to add the &quot;Base&quot; suffix to an abstract class to obviate the fact that it was abstract. Hence, we have classes like <code>System.Web.Hosting.VirtualFileBase</code>, <code>System.Configuration.ConfigurationValidatorBase</code>, <code>System.Windows.Forms.ButtonBase</code>, and, of course, <code>System.Collections.CollectionBase</code>.</p>
  <p>But I've noticed that, of late, a lot of abstract classes in the Framework don't seem to be following this convention. For example, the following classes are all abstract but don't follow this convention:</p>
  <ul>
  <li><p><code>System.DirectoryServices.ActiveDirectory.DirectoryServer</code></p>
  </li>
  <li><p><code>System.Configuration.ConfigurationElement</code></p>
  </li>
  <li><p><code>System.Drawing.Brush</code></p>
  </li>
  <li><p><code>System.Windows.Forms.CommonDialog</code></p>
  </li>
  </ul>
  <p>And that's just what I could drum up in a few seconds. So I went looking up what the official documentation had to say, to make sure I wasn't crazy. I found the <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229040.aspx" rel="noreferrer">Names of Classes, Structs, and Interfaces</a> on MSDN at <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229042.aspx" rel="noreferrer">Design Guidelines for Developing Class Libraries</a>. Oddly, I can find no mention of the guideline to add &quot;Base&quot; to the end of an abstract class's name. And the guidelines are no longer available for version 1.1 of the Framework.</p>
  <p>So, am I losing it? Did this guideline ever exist? Has it just been abandoned without a word? Have I been creating long class names all by myself for the last two years for nothing?</p>
  <p>Someone throw me a bone here.</p>
  <p><strong>Update</strong>
  I'm not crazy. The guideline existed. <a href="https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/archive/blogs/kcwalina/i-dont-like-the-base-suffix" rel="noreferrer">Krzysztof Cwalina gripes about it in 2005.</a></p>