Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

vidarholen.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 278 posts

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#141

Post by bryanrasmussen »

Arainach wrote: post #74
rfrey wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I contend that you are slipping in the words "respectful" and "professional" and assuming the benefit of their positive connotations without an argument that simply omitting the occasional well-placed curse is indeed "professional". I think so-called "professional" speech - which I'd call bland and often ineffective speech - is professional in the same way that a suit and tie is professional. It's a uniform to ensure…

Cursing adds nothing to the code. "// Stupid fucking hack" is worse than "stupid hack" (more characters while conveying no extra information) and much worse than "work around Lotus 123 leap year calculation bug"

//hack = I have found a way around the problem that was probably necessary to use and could even be arguably clever under the circumstances where a hack is required Example: When I suggested using data uri as source of iframe to get around domain security restrictions in FF and still allow you to click on links and scroll in iframe which using about: uri scheme did not (long story involving national security and identity platforms)

//stupid hack = somewhat ugly thing I am doing to somewhat solve problem because I am perhaps not clever enough to think my way to solution at this time. Example - when I set the center of the map to be a couple decimal points of latitude off from where the address actually was because the designer wanted the address to be not in the center of the map, because then it would be covered by the search box, but slightly above the search box. Stupid because I bet there was another way to do it, also stupid because it was not exact and so we did not know exactly where the address was going to be drawn in relation to the search box, but we knew pretty closely where and that was good enough.

//stupid fucking hack = ugly thing I am doing that must be done to get around problems even though as well as being ugly it is also less than optimal in multiple ways, requirement for this hack caused by third party who have screwed us over by their very existence which makes me incredibly angry Example: put span around any text node inside of an element rendered by React using a Ref to get around the Google translate bug and similar problems.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#142

Post by Larrikin »

koverstreet wrote: post #94
Arainach wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cursing adds nothing to the code. "// Stupid fucking hack" is worse than "stupid hack" (more characters while conveying no extra information) and much worse than "work around Lotus 123 leap year calculation bug"

There's degrees of hackyness. Tone and emphasis are important parst of clear and effective communication. Something that's a mere "hack" might be something I don't mind, but worth being aware of and revisiting if and when the code becomes more complicated and has to do more things. A "stupid fucking hack" indicates something that could have only come about by a whole chain of stupidity and mistakes, inflicting brain…

Then write that, none of that information is conveyed otherwise

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#143

Post by thfuran »

gspencley wrote: post #128
thfuran wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You describe it as a religious belief. Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? The rationality of religion aside, belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational.

> Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? Yes. What's your point? It doesn't make those beliefs rational. Faith is belief in something despite the absence of evidence. I am using the term "religious belief" interchangeably with "faith based belief system." > belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational. I have no idea what you are trying to say in…

>There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational.

But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#144

Post by wat10000 »

squigz wrote: post #136
wat10000 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. "Writing professionally" is also known as "communicating effectively" and it is part of doing/leading. Linus made an enormous impact, certainly. He'd have had an even bigger impact if he was less of a caustic dick. And before you say that there's a tradeoff involved and that genius technical people are just that way, look up Berkson's paradox.

I'm sure many of us have worked with that type of person who is very good at what they do, but also a massive asshole, and then people put up with it, because, well, that's just part of being a genius (as an aside: this sentiment is often applied to other disciplines too; see, Max Verstappen in F1 or Magnus Carlson in chess.) I learned long ago that no matter how good they are, it's not worth it.

Agreed. And one thing people seem to miss in this argument is that people can change, and generally will if they're in an environment that facilitates it. If a skilled programmer gets constant pushback because they act like a jerk, they'll probably figure out how to behave.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#145

Post by falcor84 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #137
falcor84 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I see it, there's nothing offensive about "do better" - it's just asking the person to not repeat the same (ostensibly misguided) thing they did before. On the other hand, there's Kratos's “Don't be sorry, be better”, which did hit me hard when I reached that part in God of War 2018. That one hit me on a very personal level.

"Do better" when used in an online debate forecloses discussion. It implies that the one saying "do better" is the authority on what "better" is. What if I disagree?

Then you reply with "Because of the following reasons, doing better must entail the following actions...", rather than argue against the need to do better

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#146

Post by koala_man »

d3m0t3p wrote: post #3

You can check company names too ! It's interesting to see that by default, the graph shows google,apple. But adding meta, and IBM really changes the plot. Meta went from 2K to 10K+ from 2018 to 2025. While IBM seems to have stopped contributing in 2008. Since they the merging with RedHat, I would have expected to see them increase again but none of RedHat / IBM seems to have increase. https://www.vidarholen.net/conte…

> Meta went from 2K to 10K+ from 2018 to 2025

Facebook rebranded to Meta in October 2021

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#147

Post by gspencley »

thfuran wrote: post #143
gspencley wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surely you are aware that there are actually people with religious beliefs? Yes. What's your point? It doesn't make those beliefs rational. Faith is belief in something despite the absence of evidence. I am using the term "religious belief" interchangeably with "faith based belief system." > belief that there are people with religious beliefs is anything but irrational. I have no idea what you are trying to say in…

>There are people out there who believe in crazy things. We agree on that. How we should treat those people, or react to their existence, is entirely outside of the scope of conversation. It is perfectly acceptable to call an irrational belief irrational. But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offe…

> But in this context, the purportedly irrational belief is that some phrases are offensive. If you accept that there are people who would, rationally or not, be offended by some phrases, then I don't understand why you would even make the claim that it's absurd to believe that some people would be offended by some phrases.

Now I understand why we are talking passed each other. Thank you for the clarification.

You are reframing my premise and, in doing so, changing it to something I never said.

Although before I explain the source of our misunderstanding, I want to point out the irony that you are coming from a philosophically "subjectivist" position and are defending a philosophical "intrinsicist" position. Usually they are two opposite extremes and tend to be at odds with each other.

Subjectivism is the idea that perception creates reality. We often will hear people use language like "my truth" vs "your truth." Your position is subjectivist in the sense that you are clinging to a premise (that I never refuted or discussed) which states that "SOME people are offended by certain words, therefore 'bad words' exist."

Again, that's not the premise I stated or was discussing. But after your clarification, this is the premise that you thought we were discussing.

The intrinscist position states: "Certain words are bad by their nature. They will automatically cause ANYONE who hears them to be offended."

it is the "intrinsicist" position that I was calling absurd. I never said that there aren't people who hold this belief. And I never said that there was no such thing as PEOPLE who get offended by words.

I was saying that the idea that a word unto itself can be "bad by nature" is absurd. And I stand by that.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#149

Post by bee_rider »

noworriesnate wrote: post #72
gspencley wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't personally care about language choices in code, but I'll play devil's advocate and speculate as to why a business might be concerned. 1. Reputational harm in the event that code needs to be shared. Say, the code gets read in court, or an outside consultant is brought in who is given access to the code. The company likely wants to maintain the same standard of professionalism that they expect when their employ…

Yeah I had a coworker who put salty MessageBox.Show debug messages in the code, and one day while demoing the software a pop up appeared that said “BITCH!!!” Needless to say the customer was not amused. So the simple solution is just ban the bad words from the source code.

Swears are fine and good, slurs not so much.

Re: Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

#150

Post by alistairSH »

holowoodman wrote: post #2

Theory: the shift towards lesser swearwords is a sign of corporatization, making the linux source a soulless bland hellscape of confirmity.

TIL: Politeness makes one soulless.

I don't personally care if a swear word appears in code, but I do care if I offend others with my use of swear words. So, I try to limit their use to circumstances where offense is unlikely. Work is rarely such a place, particularly with shared resources like code. I might swear in a 1-on-1 conversation at work, but I definitely don't drop swear words into documents that unknown people might see. That's just basic professionalism.

Post reply on HN