Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] CODING_STYLE amendments

[malc <av1474@comtv.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2761 bytes --]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Blue Swirl wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:00 PM, malc <av1474@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 <armbru@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.
> 

ed

-- 
mailto:av1474@comtv.ru