On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:00 PM, malc <av1...@comtv.ru> wrote: > On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Jes Sorensen wrote: > >> On 08/21/10 16:03, Blue Swirl wrote: >> > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> >> > wrote: >> >> Could be "fun" for developers using Windows. If they exist. >> > >> > At least OCaml site offers binary download for Windows. I didn't >> > compile Coccinelle myself, so I don't know how much that helps. >> >> I know nothing about Coccinelle, but I did find that yum knew where to >> get it. However, that said, I think we should try to avoid depending on >> exotic tools that may not exist on OSes which may be used by developers. >> What about OSX? >> >> >>>> Even a working patch checking tool can only address the last issue >> >>>> (haphazard enforcement), not the other ones. You may not care. >> >>> >> >>> Which other ones? >> >> >> >> Quoting myself: >> >> >> >> [...] the current CODING_STYLE is >> >> idiosyncratic, >> > >> > Personal preference. I liked Fabrice's style but I also like current >> > style. I would probably like Linux style except for the LISPisms. I >> > don't like GNU or Java style. >> >> My favorite quote from the Linux kernel coding style: >> "First off, I'd suggest printing out a copy of the GNU coding standards, >> and NOT read it. Burn them, it's a great symbolic gesture." :) >> >> >> While wasting time for historical reasons is certainly better than >> >> wasting time for the heck of it, it's arguably worse than stopping the >> >> waste. >> > >> > But how would you do that? Drop the CODING_STYLE (and accept >> > anything)? Switch to a new CODING_STYLE that is widely appreciated and >> > so all bikeshedding will cease? Enforce current style? > > Let's burn GCC, binutils and the rest of the stuff written in this style > too, the fact that Linus uses inferior editor is not good enough reson > to follow his style nor advice. That said, second sentence of the opening > paragraph of Linux's coding style document does resonate with me.
Even if GCC etc. were written in LISP and then preprocessed into C (which seems to be the intention of the developers), I'd still use them. Especially since there are very few alternatives. OCaml looks very uninteresting or even painful to me. I still have no problem using Coccinelle, as long as I don't have to fix bugs by looking into its sources. What's the ultimate editor? I'd love to drop Emacs, which is annoying but does its job better than the others that I've tried.
