Anthropomorphising interfaces - good or bad idea?

Question

I have for some time tried to anthropomorphise (meaning human readable) the names I give to interfaces, to me this is the same as give an interface a role based name – trying to capture the purpose of the interface in the name.

I was having a discussion with other developers who think this is a little strange and childish.

What do the folks of SO think?

Examples (C# syntax):

public interface IShowMessages
{
    void Show(string message);
    void Show(string title, string message);
}

public class TraceMessenger : IShowMessages
{
}

public interface IHaveMessageParameters
{
    IList<string> Parameters { get; }
}

public class SomeClass : IHaveMessageParameters
{
}

Answer 1

Interfaces describe behavior, and so I name them so as to to communicate the behavior they are mandating. This 'generally' means that the name is a verb, (or adverb) or some form of action-describing phrase. Combined with the "I" for interface, this looks like what you are doing...

ICanMove, IControllable, ICanPrint, ISendMesssages, etc...

using adverbs as in IControllable, IDisposable, IEnumerable, etc. communicates the same thought as a verb form and is terser, so I use this form as well...

Finally, more important (or at least equally important) than what you name the interface, is to keep the interfaces you design as small and logically contained as possible. You should strive to have each interface represent as small and logically connected a set of methods/properties as possible. When an interface has so much in it that there is no obvious name that would describe all the behavior it mandates, it's a sign that there is too much in it, and that it needs to be refactored into two or more smaller interfaces. So, maming interfaces in the way you are proposing helps to enforce this type of organizational design, which is a good thing.