|
With the first release candidate of Linux 4.11 now available, Torvalds took some time to vent some frustration at the quality of some code he received as part of the merge process. In related news, it's a day of the week ending in 'y'
I think he needs to look into decaf.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I'm rather glad he's like that. Weeds out the clowns.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I agree.
There are people who :
1. type code
and those who
2. craft software
The two are completely different breeds.
If you've ever crafted software you'll know the difference.
So, if you don't know the difference. You've only typed code. 
I'm serious.
My work here is done. 
|
|
|
|
|
So, since it is not clear from your post ... do you know the difference or did you just read this assertion somewhere? 
modified 19-Nov-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Tine Svete wrote: ...just read this assertion...
What!?!
I wrote it. I coined it. You may use it as you like though as long as you provide this little copyleft agreement* every time you say it.
*GNU GPL[^]
|
|
|
|
|
+500 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
In this case, he was quite restrained and I support it. When it becomes abusive he crosses a line - it is as likely to put off skilled developers who haven't got thick skin as anyone.
In most professional environments this would be regarded as unprofessional and in many places be grounds for dismissal. We shouldn't cut him too much slack, or it promotes a culture that is really undesirable.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. I don't really follow anything related to him, so I'd agree abusive conduct wouldn't be acceptable having heard that. I'd still rather choose that over someone who doesn't care about the code though, just set him straight on what's ok. I just suppose nobody will do that since he's Torvalds though. But placing myself in his shoes, there are a lot of people who don't care about their work. They're just lazy. It can be tough to deal with for those that do care.
Anyway, you're right... abusive is bad juju.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, people do call him out on it pretty regularly. While evidently a talented developer, his personal skills are such that if my teenage son behaved like him, he'd get into a hell of a lot of trouble at school.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, God forbid that anyone should 'screw all the rules and processes', and instigate a new operating system.
Piss a river, and people will piss in it their own way.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
In all honesty though, he has some very good points. People who screw the rules and do their own thin at their jobs get fired (at least they should...), so why should something like this be any different? He could have said it better, but as he said: "on the internet, nobody can hear you being subtle".
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open source is like open range; you never know what you might run (or step) into.
|
|
|
|
|
Open Source means that the source code is freely given. Linux is Open Source. Open Source in this context is nothing more than a policy regarding ther safe storage of the source code.
Any phylosophical onanism adds nothing, and Mr. torvalds knows it. He's managing a project, huge project, and learnt better than to let any hippie wannabee h4x0r screw around with that.
Look at Slackware, one of the best Linux distibution available: its creator managed it with iron fist and full control, and there isn't a single Slackware version which is not up to standard.
* CALL APOGEE, SAY AARDWOLF
* GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
* Never pay more than 20 bucks for a computer game.
* I'm a puny punmaker.
|
|
|
|
|
I do support, clean code and well defined processes, however Torvalds forgot that he does NOT own Linux... It is open source... If the community members will to support the development process are not up to the level he's expecting, what can we say? Linux not attractive? Torvalds bullying too much?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
We need more people like him, IMO.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve heard a bit of conventional wisdom in the software industry. It holds that people will read a given line of code an order of magnitude more times than they’ll modify it. I only use single-character variables to help people understand my code
|
|
|
|
|
So if I read 20 lines of code, but only think a couple of them are bad, there's something wrong with me?
But what if I read 20 lines that are all good?
Am I therefore terrible?
What assumptions are we supposed to start from, here?
I've read a lot more good code than bad code*.
* Note that I stay away from QA specifically to maintain that status quo
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Some of that is obvious, but when he presents:
var distinctCoordinatesBelow = _window.GetAll<T>().Where(c => c.Location.Y > LabelYCoordinate).OrderBy(c => c.Location.Y).Select(c => c.Location.Y).Distinct();
As an example of an undesirable LINQ chain he lost me. Any reasonable programmer would write:
var distinctCoordinatesBelow = _window.GetAll<T>()
.Where(c => c.Location.Y > LabelYCoordinate)
.OrderBy(c => c.Location.Y)
.Select(c => c.Location.Y)
.Distinct();
Which is much, much more readable.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Is your code hard to understand
Yes.
int _,__,___; 
Hum. Wasn't supposed to have space b/n _ ARGGGGG. CODEproj3ct...
The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up.
Paul Valery
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Erik Dietrich,
All code is hard to understand. Picking apart language idiomatic syntax is irrelevant because any and all language syntax obscures, dissects, decouples, entangles, abstracts, simplifies, modifies, and otherwise complicates the initial intent, which is usually simply stated in any spoken language of your choice.
If it were not so, we wouldn't need unit testing, QA departments, and lawyers (at least for software bugs that kill people and waste millions of dollars of tax payer's money when Mars satellites and rovers go boom or missing.)
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Spiceworks survey shows positive workplace relationships rank above money as key to job satisfaction. "You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps!"
|
|
|
|
|
For something to be Turing complete, it must be able to solve every problem solvable by any other computer that exists or that could be imagined to exist (such as a Turing machine). And now your life is Turing complete
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
