Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

"dev, gn, /svc, /pkg, PA_VMAR_ROOT" Hate this old unix approach for name shortening, what makes them unreadable and non intuitive. If they break compatibility anyway, they could name things in a way, that people can read like a book.

When programming, variables should be self-explanatory. However, things you re-type constantly (copy -> cp, remove -> rm, variable data -> /var) are fine to abbreviate with logical abbreviations.

I don't have trouble understanding dev, /svc and /pkg because they're already common abbreviations. The gn and PA_VMAR_ROOT I'd have to look up, but if I'm using it constantly, I don't mind needing to learn. I mean, I needed to learn to use Vim, too, and now I'd never want anything else.

I'd rather have typing assist than abbreviated names. To be self-explanatory, it's called ISingletonComponentFactory, but that doesn't mean I type all of that out.

Typing assistants mostly suck. And it's not only about the typing. You still have to read the names or process them otherwise.

"Self-explanatory": That doesn't exist. You always need context. The art is to use just enough verbosity. Say the interesting and distinctive things. Not the boring things that can be easily figured out (Singleton, Factory, boring. What kind of component?)

> You still have to read the names or process them otherwise.

And how long does it take you to parse "svc" vs. "service" in average microseconds per day? With old unix there was at least a need to keep memory use low, today we are only limited by Microsofts MAX_PATH.

What I said was about typing assistants and about efficient naming. But after reading the article, I would make a point for svc being not a bad decision. Ask any otherwise uninitiated programmer what meaning she would associate with "svc" or "service". You don't get anything useful out of either without additional context. Even

    /svc, which is a bundle of services from the environment in which the application runs.
is not really enough for me to understand what this is about.

Now, since this is a distinctive concept that comes with a learning cost, why not make a short name like "svc" for it? That is actually more distinctive than "service". And you save 4 characters every time you read or write it.

Wait so you think "svc" is easier to read & process than "service"? What planet are you on?

It is, depending on how often it's used and how cohesive the implementation is. Anyway "service" is one of these terrible non-descriptive names. Is this some kind of abstract datatype? A reference to a system daemon? Or just a data value processed by business logic? You need context anyway.

I'm hoping Fuchsia isn't being designed as an OS where you constantly have to type file paths.

Also you rarely need to type full paths even on Linux. I'm nearly all shells you can press tab to autocomplete them. I.e. you press "/d<tab>" and it will change it to /dev. That's exactly the same for dev and devices.

There's really no reason for short confusing names other than laziness and jargon-based egotism.

Fully agree. No need for the shitty parts of UNIX to be in a new OS. Use full names. I've never used OSX/macOS but I do admire how they've gone about doing the whole UNIX thing, there seems to actually be some standard to it unlike the LSB and from what I gather to uninstall a program you just delete it's directory. Try doing that on literally any other mainstream OS!

Unfortunately not. You also have to delete from ~/Library/Caches at the least. If you want to delete the user data then you will need to delete from ~/Library/Application Support, Preferences, Containers, etc, etc...

Doesn't always work. Lots of apps end up leaving data Lyon around in Library, and some of the "big name" apps require a full installer and uninstalled, along with admin privileges (see adobe, autodesk, Microsoft)

GoboLinux had an amazingly awesome alternative file system layout https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoboLinux

Does it have creat?

Given how they named everything else it's probable 'cre'.

skng th mprtnt qstns n mssng vwl t a tm

Another positive of short names is that commonly used names occupy less screen real estate

I agree.

People who don't understand need to know that big / Retina displays are not accessible to people who, let's say it, are poor immigrant geniuses who only have access to a 1024*768.

Terminals are 80x24, and even system administrators need to have multiple terminal windows open.

Let's not forget that a lot of people learn through books, so print real estate is an issue as well.

I agree, I would much prefer short but full names (lowercase).

svc is especially cringy.

svc is very very common in Solaris based OSes.

Interesting. No reason to emulate mistakes though.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact