Messages in this thread | | | From | Bjorn Helgaas <> | Date | Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:13:26 -0600 | Subject | Re: checkpatch guide for newbies |
| |
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@ahsoftware.de> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:01 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Long Lines >>>> >>>> Historically screens were 80 characters wide and it was annoying when >>>> code went >>>> over the edge. These days we have larger screens, but we keep the 80 >>>> character >>>> limit because it forces us to write simpler code. >> >> Sorry, but that just isn't true and never was. Having a line wide limit of >> 80 characters while forcing tabs to be 8 characters long limits most code to >> just 72 characters. And even less (max 64) inside constructs like if, for or >> while. >> >> The only outcome of that totally silly rule is that variable names will >> become shorted to silly acronyms almost nobody does understand make code >> unreadable.
In the context of a two-sentence paragraph, Dan's original text is pithy and accurate. A Wikipedia article would deserve more elaboration.
Obviously the skill of the programmer is the overwhelming factor, but I think restricting the line length does help encourage simpler, better-factored code. It's also part of the whole "it's better to be consistent than to be better" thing. If 95% of the files in Linux use 80-character lines and the remainder use longer lines, it's just an ongoing hassle for the reader.
>> I always feel like beeing in the IT stone age when programmers thought they >> have to use variable names like a, b and c to save storage, memory or to >> type less when reading linux kernel code. > I was about to disagree because I've never seen variables named a, b > or c, but I found that there are at least 2238 variables named a, b or > c in linux-next. This is not good.
That is not self-evident. In many cases, e.g., loop iterators, simple names are fine. Nothing is gained by renaming a loop counter from "a" to "array_index." Simple names for simple things help the reader focus on more important aspects of the code.
Bjorn
| |