Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:52:24 +0200 From: dan_partelly <dan_partelly@rdsor.ro> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Hubbard Jordan <jkh@ixsystems.com> Subject: Re: relaunchd: a portable clone of launchd Message-ID: <6af37e1171c480dd1984409bbd029d0d@rdsor.ro> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1601121151560.6849@sea.ntplx.net> References: <5687D3A9.5050400@NTLWorld.com> <CAGfo=8kXzNVKy9gx0jkME4iRRyrgrsfpPnW3nYrZC0gysapPcg@mail.gmail.com> <817860B6-5D67-41A3-ADD7-9757C7E67C35@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1601081020270.34827@nog2.angryox.com> <07D83705-D89F-4125-B57B-920EDEBC8A85@rdsor.ro> <70975696-3E07-48B9-BFD1-3C2F51E715BB@icloud.com> <E85C42D4-963B-4632-9182-E591A80D1306@rdsor.ro> <76E6AF2A-917B-41EB-883A-C27AB2BB9F71@ixsystems.com> <20160112125948.GH3625@kib.kiev.ua> <B11FEEF6-DE75-4DAC-A0EE-52B047C3F7B7@rdsor.ro> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1601121151560.6849@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>It depends on how you define what is a good level of verboseness, >> and you can have that in pretty much any language. Sure, I get your point, and you are perfectly right. Winodws ntoskrnl is clearly C , but I am extremely sure that their verbosity (or perceived verbosity) is an asset , not a liability, for their source code maintenance. Some argue that MS systems team botched with the hungarian notation, and the app team used it better, but ... even so I found it useful. And yeah, Cutler didn't let any smarty-pants say "oh, "XX_CREATE_XX" is too verbose, let's contract it to "XX_CREAT_XX". On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:20:02 -0500 (EST), Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Dan Partelly wrote: > >> Verbose is not bad , Konstantin . I actually prefer verbose source. >> It is easy to read and understand. It is preferable all day long to >> clever hacks and obfuscated ways of writing code >> >> Ill tell you one thing. Years ago, when Ms Leaked on their site >> ntoskrnl.exe symbols with private debug information , I dint had too >> much trouble understanding a lot of the implementation details from >> the kernel , exactly because MS is verbose. And that .. in WinDbg >> assembly. The source would have been much much more easier to read. >> >> Yeah, MS’s APIs are not the best I give you that. But regarding >> *readability* , Windows is leaps and bounds ahead of any Unix I seen. >> It is extremely easy to figure out what a certain function does, how >> they use data structures, and what the members of said data structures >> represent. >> >> I like verbosity. Makes figuring things easier, makes maintenance >> easier. I frankly hope to spend as little of possible of my life >> reading terse source code. This is also why I like Ada language. Its a >> joy to read Ada source. > > Ok, speaking as a software engineer for 31 years and has been > developing and maintaining Ada programs for the last 25 of those > years... Ada is just a language, I've seen both bad design and > good design in it, as well as in C and Java. I've seen massive > over verboseness in Ada and it makes maintaining it a nightmare. > When your coding guidelines have a maximum line length of 132 > or greater characters, and lines _routinely_ go _well_ over 80 > characters, because of package hierarchy, and package and > subprogram (methods) names being very long, you know something > is wrong. > > It depends on how you define what is a good level of verboseness, > and you can have that in pretty much any language. You just > need to herd cats to follow the guidelines. > > I echo the sentiments about CORBA. Being forced to use > bloated middleware to do something simple... I have to > stop thinking about it because it makes me angry ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6af37e1171c480dd1984409bbd029d0d>