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

211–220 of 278 posts

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

#211

Post by kelnos »

gspencley wrote: post #103
mcgrath_sh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can swear a lot while talking. I have never written a curse word in my code, especially professionally. Just seems odd and not useful? I wouldn't be offended if I came across one, but it seems weird to use in a professional setting? A lot of the times I have seen inappropriate words used were not in any context and were used as a "joke" when logging/debugging. So "dicks 01" or "fuck me 01" instead of a bland "check…

> So "dicks 01" or "fuck me 01" instead of a bland "check 01" or whatever. For some reason, that seems much more unprofessional than a comment like "this code is shitty but works, need to clean up." Agreed. Context matters a lot. People say "shitty code" all the time. I don't see that as unprofessional. But "dicks01" I would probably change if I came across it in code. Not because I would find it offensive, but becau…

When I was a child in the 80s (US east coast), my parents considered "crap" to be a bad word, and my sister and I got in trouble if we used it.

It's funny to think of that today; I can't imagine any of my peers who are parents forbidding their child from saying "crap" (though I wouldn't be surprised if that was still a thing in some places).

But yes, time and culture matter. "Crap" has fallen off the list just has "humbug" has (and "humbug" has fallen out of use nearly entirely; I imagine the only reason people are familiar with it at all today is because of the fictional Ebenezer Scrooge), and new words have been added as "bad" that weren't a problem in my childhood, or back when "humbug" was a big deal.

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

#212

Post by BeetleB »

tayo42 wrote: post #187
BeetleB wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I find interesting about corporations forbidding swearwords in code. How common is this? I work in a big corporation and we have no such policy. When we contribute to open source, there's a good chance they'll make us remove any. Internal code, though? Up to each team to decide.

We're not even allowed to say master branch or blacklist in corporations anymore lol

Nor are we, but those are not curse words.

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

#213

Post by hack_katz »

rfrey wrote: post #126
hack_katz wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really read the literature you try to post. From the abstract of the study the article cites (~and the article itself implies agreement with~): "Overall the findings suggest that, with the exception of female-sex-related slurs, taboo expressives and general pejoratives comprise the core of the category of taboo words while slurs tend to occupy the periphery, *and the ability to generate taboo language is n…

It's actually a mid-elite idea, I'd say - that novice/mid/elite programmer meme springs to mind. For sure profanity is used a ton by those some would consider the rabble. Then there's medi-elite who are very pure in their language. And then there's the academics, surgeons, and nuclear physicists who use quite a bit of profanity (especially the surgeons!) and teach their kids that profanity is a linguistic tool that i…

I think that's totally plausible! Especially because the fact is that "intelligence" is an incredibly fuzzy concept, such that one could be extremely intelligent in the STEM fields, as you mention, but then be simply average in linguistic ability.

Accordingly, even IF the willingness and ability to use profanity indicated a lesser linguistic intelligence, one would be mistaken to then assume that a person with that willingness is any less of a capable professional in non-linguistic fields

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

#214

Post by betaby »

nomel wrote: post #193
BeetleB wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People still do. I think the point he's making is that the bulk of the kernel's source coming from people paid to do it has been a thing for probably over 20 years.

Any data for this?

Yes, here for example https://lwn.net/Articles/915435/

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

#215

Post by kelnos »

nomel wrote: post #194
wat10000 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3. Some of your coworkers may be among that group who finds it offensive or jarring. Maybe this is irrational, but we all are. I bet there's a sequence of ASCII bytes (say, art of certain infamous images from the early internet) that you wouldn't like to stumble across either.

And that’s what drives this ever increasing PC culture strangulating the world: fear. You have to fear that everyone will react like the most sensitive that exist (as incredible rare as they are). And, you have to fear those who are offended for others even more so, since those are the only ones you’ll have a nonzero chance of interacting with.

I don't like to look at it as fear, but I think fear is what explains a lot of the backlash toward PC culture (people don't like to be afraid; it's common to lash out at things that cause fear).

I avoid offending people not because I'm afraid of being yelled at or cancelled; I do it because I know what it feels like to be offended, and I don't enjoy it, so I don't want to make someone else feel that way.

Certainly I don't always succeed; sometimes I accidentally say something offensive, but we're all human and don't do what we intend all the time. And sometimes I do find it to be a chore, as the set of offensive things changes frequently enough, and it's hard to keep up, or even always agree why something is offensive.

People who get offended on behalf of others are incredibly annoying. I can understand and respect someone calmly saying to me, "hey, you really shouldn't say $WORD because that's really rude and offensive toward people who are a part of $SOME_GROUP", but far too many people get actively angry and try to shame you, often publicly, if you say something bad. And then those same people claim that they would prefer to live in a world where people don't offend each other... while reacting to offensive words in ways that aren't likely to improve things.

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

#216

Post by kelnos »

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…

I don't agree. If I saw "stupid fucking hack" in a comment, I don't think I'd necessarily view that as a worse hack than if it just said "stupid hack". My main assumption would be that the author was in a bad mood or was feeling cheeky or something like that.

In fact, if I was reviewing a code change with "stupid fucking hack" or "stupid hack" in it, I'd ask the author to remove it and actually explain what was going on. Comments should detail the "why", not the "what". "Stupid hack" is the "what", but I want to know why the hack is necessary.

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

#217

Post by kelnos »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #141
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"

//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 iden…

Your definitions are entirely arbitrary and certainly not even remotely universally understood.

I'd much rather a comment that succinctly but thoroughly describes what is going on and why a hack is necessary.

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

#218

Post by kelnos »

Nicook wrote: post #92
nilamo wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, "stupid hack" adds nothing that just "hack" doesn't say. And in that case, why have a comment at all? The code is likely obviously hacky. At least I can have a laugh while looking at the hack someone came up with...

I contend there is a significant difference between a stupid hack, and a better one. The negative adjective is meaningful in the comment.

Meaningful, perhaps, but not at all precise enough to be understood by everyone who might read your code in the future. Many people will understand the difference between "hack" (or even "clever hack") and "stupid hack" in a variety of different ways, many of them not in the way you intended.

When I was in my 20s I would write comments like that, but now what I'm in my 40s I see them as entirely useless, aside from a way for the author to blow off steam. Code that others have to read is not the place for that.

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

#219

Post by wat10000 »

kelnos wrote: post #215
nomel wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that’s what drives this ever increasing PC culture strangulating the world: fear. You have to fear that everyone will react like the most sensitive that exist (as incredible rare as they are). And, you have to fear those who are offended for others even more so, since those are the only ones you’ll have a nonzero chance of interacting with.

I don't like to look at it as fear, but I think fear is what explains a lot of the backlash toward PC culture (people don't like to be afraid; it's common to lash out at things that cause fear). I avoid offending people not because I'm afraid of being yelled at or cancelled; I do it because I know what it feels like to be offended, and I don't enjoy it, so I don't want to make someone else feel that way. Certainly I…

Nah, it’s not fear, it’s indignation.

You can see it on full display in the comments here. It’s not, “we shouldn’t have to live in fear of saying the wrong thing.” It’s, “how DARE they try to dictate what I can say.”

It’s obvious when people get so upset over an idea as simple as “don’t curse in your work.” Not even “don’t curse out loud, just “don’t put it in your code.” It’s the easiest thing in the world to do. It’s not like misgendering someone who presents ambiguously. If you’re about to type “fuck” into your editor, don’t. If that’s where you make your stand, it’s not fear.

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

#220

Post by ephou7 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #184

I'd note that "retarded" can be a technical term which is not an insult or swear word which means "delayed" (e.g. "tardy") In an internal combustion engine you could have "advanced" or "retarded" spark timing for instance. It's an amusing area where denotations are the same in French and English but the denotations are different. [1] All over Quebec you see convenience stores called "Couche-Tard" (Sleep Late) which c…

6.15.2 has 20 occurrences, of which only 2 are actual swearwords

  ./fs/bcachefs/bkey_cmp.h: /* we shouldn't need asm for this, but gcc is being retarded: */
  ./drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/brcm80211/brcmsmac/d11.h:/* Advance Retard */
  ./drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/phy.h:#define B43legacy_OFDMTAB_ADVRETARD B43legacy_OFDMTAB(0x09, 0)
  ./drivers/net/wireless/broadcom/b43legacy/phy.c:  for (i = 0; i
Post reply on HN