Comment

Comment on libmem_cpy-strnrrn-std-clib_Cmvaeffc_ld-TWA_nif.aarch64(32bit)2-0.13.2-23.2.so.7(3).1.1.gz.conf

Yes. Memory and storage were at a very high premium until the 1990s, and when C was first being developed, it wasn’t uncommon for computers to output to printers (that’s why print() and co are named what they are), so every character was at a premium. In the latter case, you were literally paying in ink and paper by the character. These contributed to this convention that we’re still stuck with today in C.

source

Sort:hotnew top

zqwzzle@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
IIRC older DOS versions were also limited to 8.3 filenames, so even filenames had a max limit of 8 characters + 3 extension. May it was a limitation of the file system, can’t quite remember.

source
- scurry@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  At one point it was both. At one point they internally added support for longer file names in DOS, and then a later version of the filesystem also started supporting it. I think that on DOS and Windows (iirc even today), they never actually solved it, and paths on Windows and NTFS can only be 256 characters long in total or something (I don’t remember what the exact limit was/is).
  
  source
  - isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    It’s 256, unless you enable something in the registry. NTFS supports paths longer than 256, funnily enough.
    
    source
words_number@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Thanks for the insight! I think this kind of convention that once made some sense, is now exclusively harmful, but is still followed meticulously, is often called “tradition” and is one of the high speed engines that let humanity drive towards extinction.

source
- scurry@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I agree, and these conventions are being followed less over time. Since the 1990s, Windows world, Objective-C, and C++ have been migrating away (to mixed results), and even most embedded projects have been too. The main problem is that the standard library is already like that, and one of C’s biggest selling point is that you can still use source written >40 years ago, and interact with that. So just changing that, at that point just use Go or something. I also want to say, shoutout to GNU for being just so obstinate about changing nothing except for what they make evil about style. Gotta be one of my top 5 ‘why can’t you just be good leaders, GNU?’ moments.
  
  source
  - words_number@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    at that point just use Go or something
    
    *Rust (obviously!)
    
    source
QuazarOmega@lemy.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Wait, but they didn’t print out the source code right? Or did they use teletypes to develop?

source
- xchgeaxeax@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  
  or did they use teletypes to develop
  
  Basically yeah. ed the editor was designed with that in mind
  
  source
  - QuazarOmega@lemy.lol ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Oh, that makes a lot of sense then.
    
    After all, it is the standard text editor
    
    spoiler
    uff, doesn’t feel right if it isn’t KasaneTeto saying this :/
    
    source