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

81–90 of 278 posts

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

#81

Post by nilamo »

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"

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...

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

#82

Post by perching_aix »

thrwwy451 wrote: post #53
Arainach wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hopefully in a few decades the last of the people who think that using respectful discourse means no fun can be had will be gone and we can stop rehashing these threads. You're contributing to something that runs on billions of devices across the world and is maintained by people around the world of all types. If you can't describe your code, your reasons, and your notes politely, do better.

It happens to run on billions of devices, after corporations realized they can profit from "a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)". > and is maintained by people around the world of all types. You seem to think that the whole world shares your definition of "polite". After living in a few quite different countries, I have to disagree. The diversity out there is huge. There's…

> It happens to run on billions of devices, after corporations realized they can profit from "a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu)"

While hordes of people peddle that everyone should be using it like gospel.

> After living in a few quite different countries, I have to disagree.

Yeah dude, tell us about all the countries where cursing isn't impolite and unprofessional.

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

#83

Post by cool_beanz »

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"

Adds some humanity and soul to it.

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

#84

Post by perching_aix »

jansan wrote: post #28
sschueller wrote: post #4

Retard may not be in there as a swear word. It could be a comment regarding a "delay". [1] [1] :to delay or impede the development or progress of : to slow up especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment

In Germany we have "Retard-Tabletten" (Tabletten = pills), which are not intended to stop (or accelerate) cognitive decline, but release the active ingredients with a delay.

We have those too. I wonder how many people actually know that's what that means, cause it's not an everyday word by far here in this meaning.

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

#85

Post by neuroelectron »

VMG wrote: post #47
akie wrote: post #41

Missed the opportunity to include "garbage" in the list of default words for that graph... 5 times as frequent as the next runner up, "crap".

But what if somebody implemented garbage collection?

What garbage?

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

#87

Post by dullcrisp »

javcasas wrote: post #55
Arainach wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are far more than two types; all of the most effective programmers I've ever worked with can do everything you mentioned and write professionally. If we have to boil it down to two types, however, I'd split it as "people who think they can do everything themselves and only the code matters" and "people who build effective teams capable of far more than themselves solo", and it's the second group that does the m…

It's great that you can do/lead and write professionally. But, in any case, writing professionally shouldn't take priority over doing/leading. Otherwise we wouldn't have the Linux kernel; and I bet the swearing guy behind it got more stuff done and made a bigger difference than the combination of the most effective programmers you have ever met.

Yeah, if only Linux could be built by one swearing guy with no external contributors like Linux instead of being a bland swear-free corporate hellscape like Linux then it could be successful like Linux.

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

#88

Post by msgodel »

perching_aix wrote: post #80
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.

> a soulless bland hellscape of confirmity. I'll never understand this mentality. It's code, not some """self-expressionist""" art project.

I think it indicates stronger internalization of the "theory" (using phrasing from "Programming as Theory Building.")

There's a kind of "nesting" thing 10x/100x programmers do with code and it tends to manifest this way. The opposite extreme is the 0.1x programmer dequeing agile tickets they don't really understand and issuing broken PRs overworked senior dev "maintainers" LGTM merge. I think everyone exposed to corporate software (on both sides) is really tired of that.

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

#89

Post by cool_beanz »

danparsonson wrote: post #67
javcasas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two types of people: the ones that write the code, find the bugs (including hardware ones), find the bad design decisions (including the ones they wrote themselves)... and the ones that complain that they found a swearword in the source code they never see because compilation step. Or as they say in the army: do, lead, or get out of the way.

Total non-sequitur - it's entirely possible to be highly productive and also moderate your written language for a wider audience. What a ridiculous distinction to make.

In a world where code is written more and more by LLMs, these random human generated comments might hold anthropological value in some future.

Think of it akin to us studying cave paintings, wondering what whoever left their handprint on the cave wall was thinking when they did it. So these ancient lines of code might be studied in some future by our descendants, or whatever form we'll take. Interesting to perceive the author's frustration with said bit of code.

By comparison LLM generated code is neat and tidy with clean and clear comments. Plenty of that to go around for the future. No need to suck the soul out of every bit of code we currently have.

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

#90

Post by gspencley »

thfuran wrote: post #77
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…

>The idea that arbitrary sequences of phones or characters will cause anyone within ear or eye-shot to become offended is rather absurd. No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning or elicit any other response.

> No more absurd than the notion that a mere sequence of sounds could convey any other meaning of elicit any other response.

I completely disagree. It is a lot more absurd. Language is not a priori. It must be learned. It requires both a speaker and a listener. Both must understand the meaning of the spoken word as well as other factors of communication, including tone and body language, in order to interpret and understand the communicated meaning.

The idea behind a "bad word" is that the word is offensive no matter what. It doesn't matter what the dictionary definition of the word is, or the intended meaning of the word or the subject of the sentence that employed the word. The word is intrinsically "just bad" according to this religious belief.

Objectively, sometimes there are polite ways to use a "four letter" word such as "fuck." The preceding sentence is one such example. But ... if you hold the irrational view that I am describing, there is no such thing. It is ALWAYS "bad." This is a faith based belief system. There is no grounding for such a position. Under such a position, even an academic discussion of the word would require it be censored for fear of offending someone.

Post reply on HN