The first time you zero-padded a year to five digits, I thought it was an accident, but there's two more instances of it. Why do you write 1983 as 01983?
That's a bit like his signature but it's also fairly annoying, it doubles the time required to interpret the number as a year, and I usually have to read the number twice.
That's the main reason I asked. It took longer than normal just to read a date, and it apparently has no useful benefit (yes I saw the side-comment about the "Long Now").
Amazing stuff, amazing job. Most of what’s written here is still relevant. It’s hard to concieve that all the unixies here are the rock-solid bases of current UNIXes
It's not harmless. 1) It's annoying. 2) It's off-topic - this isn't an article about the long now, or about dating systems. 3) It's inefficient to write dates not in the standard format - it makes everyone waste mental energy trying to figure out how to parse it. The third point is especially bad for this article, where in context, the assumption should be that 0xxxx is octal, which isn't what he's actually doing at…
the degree to which you are projecting your own antisocial behavior onto me is astounding i decline to take responsibility for your emotions i would appreciate it if you would stop harassing people because you don't like the date format they use, their haircut, or their clothes
Despite the fact that they've got a point, in my opinion (which I won't try to impose onto others, be reassured), I don't how it could considered harassing. He wrote one comment, that's all. Also, that comment didn't talk about haircuts or clothes, and I don't see how they could be seen as antisocial through that comment.
Probably due to this: https://longnow.org/ Personally I think it's a harmless but also not useful affectation (but I also think our chances of making it into the 10,000s as anything still using equivalent dates are slim at best).
It's not harmless. 1) It's annoying. 2) It's off-topic - this isn't an article about the long now, or about dating systems. 3) It's inefficient to write dates not in the standard format - it makes everyone waste mental energy trying to figure out how to parse it. The third point is especially bad for this article, where in context, the assumption should be that 0xxxx is octal, which isn't what he's actually doing at…
You'd hate the Holocene Calendar then. (This year is the year 12023.)
the degree to which you are projecting your own antisocial behavior onto me is astounding i decline to take responsibility for your emotions i would appreciate it if you would stop harassing people because you don't like the date format they use, their haircut, or their clothes
Despite the fact that they've got a point, in my opinion (which I won't try to impose onto others, be reassured), I don't how it could considered harassing. He wrote one comment, that's all. Also, that comment didn't talk about haircuts or clothes, and I don't see how they could be seen as antisocial through that comment.
Thank you.
But in fairness to kragen, I have complained about his writing dates that way before. He might at least feel harassed.
It's not harmless. 1) It's annoying. 2) It's off-topic - this isn't an article about the long now, or about dating systems. 3) It's inefficient to write dates not in the standard format - it makes everyone waste mental energy trying to figure out how to parse it. The third point is especially bad for this article, where in context, the assumption should be that 0xxxx is octal, which isn't what he's actually doing at…
the degree to which you are projecting your own antisocial behavior onto me is astounding i decline to take responsibility for your emotions i would appreciate it if you would stop harassing people because you don't like the date format they use, their haircut, or their clothes
Antisocial? If you do something in public, I can complain about it in public. If the complaining can be antisocial, so can the doing be antisocial. So think well before you throw that charge at me.
and ken in the go source tree in 2009: > spell it with an "e" https://go.googlesource.com/go/+/c90d392ce3d3203e0c32b3f98d1...
Tangent: I've yet to find what I'd deem a "definitive" answer on why the 'e' was dropped. Sure, Ken said it was his biggest mistake, but every answer on why it's missing just point to the quote from him. I've seen suggestions related to a possible six-character limit (from Radix50 - "50" being octal for 64), but "creat" is only five. And being a mistake, why was it never fixed early on?
I was going based on the theory of "5 characters plus leading underscore hits linker 6-character limit", but then this document talks about a system call named "execute".
If "execute" was really called "exec" in the source, then none of the syscall names I saw are longer than "creat".
you're thinking of basic-80, which gates and allen (and davidoff) did (in 01976?) on the dec-10 at harvard, but we're talking about qdos, which tim paterson did in 01981 at seattle computer products before selling it to microsoft
Ahhh yes. The great distance of time made me forget that DOS is actually relatively new.
Tangent: I've yet to find what I'd deem a "definitive" answer on why the 'e' was dropped. Sure, Ken said it was his biggest mistake, but every answer on why it's missing just point to the quote from him. I've seen suggestions related to a possible six-character limit (from Radix50 - "50" being octal for 64), but "creat" is only five. And being a mistake, why was it never fixed early on?
I was going based on the theory of "5 characters plus leading underscore hits linker 6-character limit", but then this document talks about a system call named "execute". If "execute" was really called "exec" in the source, then none of the syscall names I saw are longer than "creat".
Except in this document, it's actually documented as "create" (with an 'e')
I was going based on the theory of "5 characters plus leading underscore hits linker 6-character limit", but then this document talks about a system call named "execute". If "execute" was really called "exec" in the source, then none of the syscall names I saw are longer than "creat".
Except in this document, it's actually documented as "create" ( with an 'e')
Maybe this document predates (discovery of) the linker limitation?
My understanding is that the linker didn't really limit the identifier length, it's just that only 6 characters were used to match them. So, shortening names create->create, execute->exec might have come afterward, as a clean up round to make it less surprising.