“It’s just easier to type” and other lies you believe

71 points

aarch64(32bit)

🤣

permalink
report
reply
11 points

x86 backwards compatibility

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

He was using (a)arch

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Just the 1 premium linux distro please…

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Commodore 64 effective

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

itoa, atoi

permalink
report
reply
8 points
*

_astrnfgets0()

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

__builtin_PRAGMA_glibc____WIN32___astrnfgets0_musl()

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

__cdecl

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

Seriously though, why? Is there historic reasons for that? Did they have to pay extra for more letters back in the day?

permalink
report
reply
31 points

Yes. Memory and storage were at a very high premium until the 1990s, and when C was first being developed, it wasn’t uncommon for computers to output to printers (that’s why print() and co are named what they are), so every character was at a premium. In the latter case, you were literally paying in ink and paper by the character. These contributed to this convention that we’re still stuck with today in C.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

IIRC older DOS versions were also limited to 8.3 filenames, so even filenames had a max limit of 8 characters + 3 extension. May it was a limitation of the file system, can’t quite remember.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

At one point it was both. At one point they internally added support for longer file names in DOS, and then a later version of the filesystem also started supporting it. I think that on DOS and Windows (iirc even today), they never actually solved it, and paths on Windows and NTFS can only be 256 characters long in total or something (I don’t remember what the exact limit was/is).

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Thanks for the insight! I think this kind of convention that once made some sense, is now exclusively harmful, but is still followed meticulously, is often called “tradition” and is one of the high speed engines that let humanity drive towards extinction.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I agree, and these conventions are being followed less over time. Since the 1990s, Windows world, Objective-C, and C++ have been migrating away (to mixed results), and even most embedded projects have been too. The main problem is that the standard library is already like that, and one of C’s biggest selling point is that you can still use source written >40 years ago, and interact with that. So just changing that, at that point just use Go or something. I also want to say, shoutout to GNU for being just so obstinate about changing nothing except for what they make evil about style. Gotta be one of my top 5 ‘why can’t you just be good leaders, GNU?’ moments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Wait, but they didn’t print out the source code right? Or did they use teletypes to develop?

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

or did they use teletypes to develop

Basically yeah. ed the editor was designed with that in mind

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points
*

I worked with a complier that would assume only compare the first 8 characters and would treat it the same afterwards.

Compiler copyright was around 1990.

Edit: This was for function names in C

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Damn that must have been such a headache

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points
*

They did, with core you could be paying for many dollars per bit of memory. They also often used teletypes, where you would pay in ink and time for every character.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Unix didn’t run on core though, did it? I thought core was before its time

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

A early models of PDP-11, the computer Unix was developed on, did use core.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I’ve heard arguments that back in ye old days each row only had 80 characters and variable names were shortened so you didn’t have to scroll the page back and forth

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I’ve already felt like I should choose shorter names in a (shitty) project where the customer asked us to use an auto-formatter and a max line-width of 120 characters.

Because ultimately, I choose expressive variable names for readability. But an auto-formatter gladly fucks up your readability, breaking your line at some random ass point, unless your line does not need to be broken up.

And so you start negotiating whether you really need certain information in a variable name for the price of badly broken lines.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

120 characters is quite much, though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

We were limited to a certain number of characters for filenames, way back in the Apple ]|[ days. IIRC it was 8

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

I’m a world of compilers and tab completion, there is no excuse for those function names

permalink
report
reply

Programmer Humor

!programmer_humor@programming.dev

Create post

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

  • Keep content in english
  • No advertisements
  • Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

Community stats

  • 7.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 955

    Posts

  • 37K

    Comments