Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code over time

Re:Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code ov... by koverstreet on Monday June 16, 2025 @11:08AM (#44290327)

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 damage that we're now stuck with, to great anguish and misery.

Those things are important to highlight, if only as lessons in what not to do.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code ov... by Larrikin on Monday June 16, 2025 @12:50PM (#44291237)

Then write that, none of that information is conveyed otherwise

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code ov... by justinrubek on Monday June 16, 2025 @02:48PM (#44292316)

And yet

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Occurences of swearing in the Linux kernel source code ov... by kelnos on Monday June 16, 2025 @05:45PM (#44293686)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]