Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

263 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Perfection. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284422)

Perfection is the enemy of progress.

Re:Perfection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284864)

Fuck Off.

Re:Perfection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284934)

Perfection is the enemy of progress.

God is the enemy of Progressives.

Perfect? (4, Funny)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284460)

More like they never fucking comment their motherfucking code.

Perl programmers never put in profane comments, because cursing in Perl itself is much more satisfying.

Re:Perfect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284598)

In my personal opinion, python does not require much commenting because its not as complex to figure out to by just looking at is as c++ (and other languages) is.

Re:Perfect? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284732)

In my personal opinion, developers like you are the reason why every single 'working' piece of Python code I've encountered has required me to spend time debugging it before actually using it.

Re:Perfect? (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284856)

Most people skilled in a language (yes, even perl) can figure out what a piece of code actually does given enough time to look through it. The comments are to tell us what the code is *supposed* to do and *why*, so when we need to debug it we know what you were thinking when you wrote it and what you were trying to accomplish. When you're trying to figure out why a piece of code doesn't do what it's supposed to do, it's very helpful to know what it was supposed to do first.

Re:Perfect? (3, Insightful)

Lije Baley (88936) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285072)

Erm, how did you know it wasn't doing what it was supposed to do if you didn't first know what it was supposed to do?

Re:Perfect? (2)

Ikkyu (84373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285354)

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.

NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (5, Informative)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284604)

Actually, contrary to the summary, this article has nothing to do with code comments, and so the amount of comments per code has no effect on the results. The profanity measured in the article is from git commit messages.

Re:NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284796)

I am sure that the creator of the Ruby is not happy about the level of profanity.

Re:NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285030)

It's okay. He is Japanese and in many ways the Japanese don't have swear words...at least not in the same way as English has them. Of course, I am making comments about another person who I do not know so take this with a grain of salt ;-p

Re:NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (2)

angus77 (1520151) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285342)

Japanese has just as many ways to express disgust and frustration as any other language. It's just that those words don't have the heavy taboos associated with them which would make them "swear words" (and get bleeped).

Re:NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (1)

pizzach (1011925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285522)

Which was why I added :-p to the end of my post :-p But thank you for the extra detail.

Re:NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (1)

binary paladin (684759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285538)

He's a Mormon too, so yeah.

Ruby is a 4-letter word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285046)

Creator of Ruby? Dude's a hypocrite... Ruby is a 4-letter word after all.

Re:NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284828)

Actually, contrary to the summary, this article has nothing to do with code comments, and so the amount of comments per code has no effect on the results. The profanity measured in the article is from git commit messages.

The original comment still stands - most PHP "programmers" I know couldn't tell the difference between source control and birth control.

If pressed, they'd probably decide that "source control" meant making sure you FTP the files to the right server (and therefore keep control of your source).

Re:NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (2, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285414)

The original comment still stands - most PHP "programmers" I know couldn't tell the difference between source control and birth control.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Sure, a lot of people who claim to write PHP code don't know what source control is. But, again, these are commit messages. What percentage of people writing commit messages do you think know what source control is?

Re:NOT CODE COMMENTS!! (2)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285494)

Actually, contrary to the summary, this article has nothing to do with code comments, and so the amount of comments per code has no effect on the results. The profanity measured in the article is from git commit messages.

The irony of that is probably only noted by British readers ("git" is a mild profanity in British English).

Re:Perfect? (4, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284672)

More like they never fucking comment their motherfucking code.

My thinking exactly. Anyone who writes in PHP probably is using it because it's the easiest option..

Re:Perfect? (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285356)

Come on guys:

I ripped an equal amount of commit messages per language

That means that PHP users have a lower incidence of swears per commit, i.e., a lower swear frequency. You may now continue your baseless PHP-bashing...

Re:Perfect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285364)

My thinking exactly. Anyone who writes in PHP probably is using it because it's the easiest option..

Generally it is a good idea to code in the easiest language for the job, don't you think? Note that I'm not saying the easiest language to write hello world in, but the easiest one for the job. Now I'll let you get back to writing your web application in assembly.

Re:Perfect? (1)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285518)

You have a valid point, but "easiest to learn in general" is not equivalent to "most appropriate for the task", and I think the distinction is important.

Re:Perfect? (4, Informative)

Dayze!Confused (717774) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284674)

Really the title of the /. article is misleading, it is Commit Profanity by Language, which is entirely different.

Re:Perfect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284700)

Perl programmers never put in profane comments, because cursing in Perl itself is much more satisfying.

and, just for the hell of it, to annoy a manager who was getting on my case about my not commenting my code, all the comments in a Perl program I wrote were C code equivalents of the various blocks of Perl..
The C was commented in English, the Perl was commented in C, the only people who would have really looked at it anyway would either be C and/or Perl programmers, as far as I was concerned, as the C compiled and worked as per the Perl code, the comments were valid..took me about five times as long to cobble the C together as it did the Perl,

I was mad back then, quite, quite mad....

Re:Perfect? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285050)

I was mad back then, quite, quite mad....

Intercal, now that would have been mad, quite, quite mad.

Re:Perfect? (4, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284740)

Perl programmers never put in profane comments, because cursing in Perl itself is much more satisfying.

I love Perl programs, like I love the Perl stack-traces. I have sampled every language, Perl is my favorite. Fantastic language. Especially to curse with. It's like wiping your ass with unix.''=~('(?{'.('/_)@){'^'_-@.][').'"'.('___[^'^'-*="|').',$/})'). I love it.

Re:Perfect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285234)

C++. And there is no escape from it. We are forever slaves to it. Our only hope, only peace is to understand it. To understand the why. Why is what separates us from them. You from me. ;-)

Re:Perfect? (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284876)

All I know is that I'm sick and tired of these motherfuckin' comments on this motherfuckin' server!

Re:Perfect? (1)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284896)

Also, you never know what "$%!!!#$!!()$!$)!" will actually parse...

Javascript profanity breakdown. (1)

Heytunk (1559837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284474)

Now do profanity + browser names for javascript.

Re:Javascript profanity breakdown. (2)

dmomo (256005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284782)

I'd throw in CSS too in that case. I'm sure the biggest find would be "fuck" + "IE6"

C++ Templates (3, Funny)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284502)

C++ Templates will turn the most pious programmer into a curse-slinging, chain-smoking alcoholic.

Re:C++ Templates (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284708)

C++ Templates will turn the most pious programmer into a curse-slinging, chain-smoking alcoholic.

I liked the templates - when they're used properly.

When some numb-nut who first learns about them and decides that they need to create a template for everything is when I hit the bottle.

Come on! Writing a template class for something that will be used for integers and no other data type for all eternity?!?!?

Or the reimplementation of STL functionality because "mine is better!" ... OOooooooooooooo!

Re:C++ Templates (1, Insightful)

Bill Dog (726542) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284804)

Then you're doing it wrong -- at the point you can no longer grok what's going on, you've used too much of the feature (for your current level of ability to work with it).

And this holds for the language itself, which is what is usually leveled against. Until you understand what the compiler is doing behind the scenes, don't use it. It doesn't just translate your high-level code, it also can generate a lot of code for you. You have to know what your tools do. Even if the basic way you use them look a lot like how you use other, simpler tools.

Re:C++ Templates (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285062)

Then you're doing it wrong -- at the point you can no longer grok what's going on, you've used too much of the feature (for your current level of ability to work with it).

Well, then, I suggest any C++ newbie stay away from the STL, (esp. <iostream> and <string>).


/cryoscript/src/core-test.cpp: In function ‘int main(int, char**)’:
/cryoscript/src/core-test.cpp:116: error: no match for ‘operator<<’ in ‘std::operator<< [with _Traits = std::char_traits<char>](((std::basic_ostream<char, std::char_traits<char> >&)(& std::cout)), ((const char*)"Mem: ")) << * mm’
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:108: note: candidates are: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& (*)(std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>&)) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:117: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(std::basic_ios<_CharT, _Traits>& (*)(std::basic_ios<_CharT, _Traits>&)) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:127: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(std::ios_base& (*)(std::ios_base&)) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:165: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(long int) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:169: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(long unsigned int) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:173: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(bool) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/ostream.tcc:91: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(short int) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:180: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(short unsigned int) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/ostream.tcc:105: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(int) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:191: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(unsigned int) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:200: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(long long int) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:204: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(long long unsigned int) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:209: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(double) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:213: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(float) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:221: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(long double) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/ostream:225: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(const void*) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
/usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/ostream.tcc:119: note: std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>& std::basic_ostream<_CharT, _Traits>::operator<<(std::basic_streambuf<_CharT, _Traits>*) [with _CharT = char, _Traits = std::char_traits<char>]
make[3]: *** [CMakeFiles/core-test.dir/src/core-test.cpp.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** [CMakeFiles/core-test.dir/all] Error 2
make[1]: *** [CMakeFiles/core-test.dir/rule] Error 2
make: *** [core-test] Error 2

Silly me, It's so obvious that I shouldn't have used cout << mm << endl; instead of cout << *mm << endl;.

Seriously? You should see what happens when you combine a string and cout error... (this is without even using any of my own templates -- I've used template classes inside template classes and the error messages were so ridiculous, I just ignored them and refer to diff).

Of course now I understand how to interpret the template error messages, but when I was starting out I honestly just used the <cstdio> because the STL error messages are atrocious.

Although I prefer G++, I've actually found that the MS compiler is better at explaining errors; I suppose it's a matter of preference.

If I would have followed your advice, I'd have never become proficient in C++, and would still be creating my own OOP-like code in C.

Re:C++ Templates (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284890)

I think templates and the STL are poorly understood. I used to be ambivalent towards templates and hated the STL with a passion. Then I took a class on generic programming in grad school and did a complete 180. Prior to the class I understood simple template usage, but I really didn't get the STL. Once some of the design concepts underpinning the STL were explained, the whole thing suddenly made sense. Furthermore, once they made sense, I could use them to write fast, compact code quickly. That class had was one of the most influential that I have ever taken.

Re:C++ Templates (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285054)

.../me looks at lit fag.... looks at visual studio... looks at glass of wine... looks back at visual studio...

um...

Re:C++ Templates (3, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285120)

C++ Templates will turn the most pious programmer into a curse-slinging, chain-smoking alcoholic.

Only those who don't understand them.
Learn a functional programming language, and you'll understand much more about C++ template programming.

I love C++ Templates (2)

LordZardoz (155141) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285444)

I am very comfortable implementing C++ templates.

The only issue I have is when I am trying to debug them, as most debuggers give output that is barely legible for non trivial template code.

END COMMUNICATION

PHP programmers (1)

ewe2 (47163) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284508)

are under close observation and medication, any profanity is silently ignored.

Re:PHP programmers (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284550)

Maybe it's time someone modified the preprocessor to recognize the #if-fucked directive.

Re:PHP programmers (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284772)

PHP programmers have such a low number of profanities in comments because they have yet to learn to comment their code.

Re:PHP programmers (1)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285036)

You should try actually reading the article before you start talking down to PHP programmers. Most of them probably know the difference between comments and commit messages. Apparently, you do not.

Also a bar chart! (5, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284528)

There's also a bar chart because somebody couldn't interpret the pie chart....

Re:Also a bar chart! (1)

Dynedain (141758) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284758)

From an infographics standpoint, bar and pie charts convey different meanings. Pie charts are useful for quickly visually approximating how much of the whole a particular part is (percentage). Bar charts, however, are very good at quickly conveying comparative sizes between the parts.

Sure, if you read into the chart enough you can deduce the same information from both, but at a quick glance you can interprit different types of correlative information from the two different chart styles. In this particular example, I think the bar graph is far more useful as the percentage of the total is meaningless. What's important is the comparison between languages, not the individual comparison to the collective data set.

Re:Also a bar chart! (2)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285134)

True, but you are still clearly capable of interpreting a pie chart. The exact words used by the person who caused a bar chart were "Pie chart? I have no idea how to interpret this..." leading me to believe they probably won't do much better with a bar chart. ;)

Re:Also a bar chart! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285384)

From a non-marketdroid-faggot standpoint, anyone who thinks "infographics" is a word needs to be killed slowly and painfully.

Re:Also a bar chart! (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284904)

A pie graph is somewhat inappropriate since the units aren't really related. C++ may have 24% of the swears, but it's more interesting the swears for the language rather than the language for the swears.

Without information on how many words were in each language, the data is pretty useless anyways. There might be only 5 messages in PHP all containing swears and 500,000 in C++ with only 48 swears.

Re:Also a bar chart! (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284926)

There might be only 5 messages in PHP all containing swears and 500,000 in C++ with only 48 swears.

According to TFA: "Note that I ripped an equal amount of commit messages per language so the results aren't based on how many projects there are per language."

Explanation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284532)

This would be better if I could find out at all what a commit message is.

Re:Explanation? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284710)

Congratulations on being the wrong kind of nerd. A commit message is a message attached to a commit in a version control repository. The commit message is basically your explanation of what you changed and why. This is most often used in software development, but is applicable for almost any cooperative authoring environment.

Isn't profanity a part of C++? (2, Funny)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284544)

Like isn't polymorphism a reference to the ability to fuck anything up - with class?

Re:Isn't profanity a part of C++? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285168)

Like isn't polymorphism a reference to the ability to fuck anything up - with class?

I'm totally going to use this quote on the next job interview I get asked about polymorphism.

I'd be curious... (1)

Quantus347 (1220456) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284558)

To see the results with a few choice words added to the Carlin's Seven. Offhand "Kill", "Hate", and "Die" would probably show themselves quite a lot.

Re:I'd be curious... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284612)

I see what you did there. die being a native widely used function in PHP. Very sneaky sir.

Margin of error (2)

nzap (1985014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284626)

C++ came out on top

Actually, JavaScript, C++, and Ruby came out on top. The difference between them is virtually indistinguishable (error bars anyone?).

Re:Margin of error (1)

maliamnon (1848524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284788)

A good estimate of the margin of error on binned data is the sqrt of the number of points in the bin. Should give a pretty good estimate without digging too far into the data, with this estimate we find the top 3 fall within 1 standard deviation. ((sqrt(45)~~6.5))

PHP For The Fucking Win (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284632)

As a goddamn PHP programmer, I am fucking glad that those cocksuckers don't put a lot of profane shit in the fucking comments. Unlike those asshole C++ programmer bastards. Goddamn cunts.

commit message, not code comment (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284664)

These are commit comments, which I can hardly see worth the effort to curse. Maybe C++ and Ruby developers are more rule based than others so they are more dedicated to making entertaining commit messages?

Re:commit message, not code comment (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284780)

These are commit comments, which I can hardly see worth the effort to curse. Maybe C++ and Ruby developers are more rule based than others so they are more dedicated to making entertaining commit messages?

Ruby mostly works by POLA principle of least astonishment so there's little reason to be shocked and swear. C++ seems to be the opposite in how it draws moths to the flame of weird language features (Overload the + operator into actually subtracting, that type of thing). There is no obfuscated C++ code competition because any large C++ project is inherently obfuscated already, so wheres the sport in that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_astonishment [wikipedia.org]

Re:commit message, not code comment (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285212)

C++ seems to be the opposite in how it draws moths to the flame of weird language features (Overload the + operator into actually subtracting, that type of thing).

Yes, you can overload the + operator to subtract on your own type. Just as you can define the function "add" to subtract in about every language I know (except classic BASIC, which didn't have named functions at all). If you find a "+" that subtracts, it's not a language problem, it's a programmer problem.

"Fixed shit yo"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284670)

What a tard.

Re:"Fixed shit yo"? (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284860)

I think it's pretty cool that somebody gave Snoop Dogg commit access.

Visual Basic? (1, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284678)

' Mom! Why doesn't this code work? Can I have a cookie and fix it later?

Re:Visual Basic? (3, Funny)

sqldr (838964) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285076)

10 years later.. why DOES this code work? and what the hell was in those cookies?

Wholesome AND perfect. (2)

quixote9 (999874) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284748)

PHP users are both. Obviously.

different strokes for different folks (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284776)

If I have an expletive in c/c++ code, it's probably because it's a hard fucking problem. If I have an expletive in PHP, it's because PHP sucks shit straight from a donkey asshole. In other words, directed at the problem or directed at the fucking toy language.

Is this more about the languages then the coders? (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284790)

This could be a crude (pun intended) reflection of how difficult the languages are to use.

Re:Is this more about the languages then the coder (1)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284846)

First thing I thought of, to be honest. As a Python programmer, I can say it makes me pretty happy as a language.

It's how you use it (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284806)

Maybe the PHP people just can't decide if the swears should be nouns or verbs.

Independent projects? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35284840)

Could there be a discrepancy between those languages that are used more often to create personal projects rather than for work? I can see cursing taking place when in an informal setting. Like that of a personal project with a friend or something. So the languages more often used for those kind of projects would have more cursing yeah? Plus all the documentation for Ruby is in moon runes so there's bound to be some cursing when you don't understand what you just did.

I remember having to do that once (4, Interesting)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284852)

When I was in high school many moons ago I wanted to get into a programming class but my grades weren't good enough so I had to submit some programming work to the teacher. I gave her the source code for a BBS I had written. I remember having to go through the entire source base looking for profanity I had used in variable names, comments, etc. Being the teenager that I was I would sometimes just use them for no reason.

I remember laughing to myself when I handed her that code. It must have been over 200 pages of printed source and I could tell she probably couldn't even write a sort function. This was back in the 80's when the educational system had almost no computer classes, let alone programming.

It was at that time I realized that sometimes other people look at your code and it can reflect on you. I have never used profanity in source ever again. I also never berate other people's stuff in my code (like poorly written API's I have to use). Clean and professional makes for more readable code and keeps everyone happy, including myself.

No tits ? (3, Funny)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284854)

As expected, no tits showed up in millions of git commits.

Re:No tits ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285136)

Ternary digits? Is that like some quantum computing shit that us dudes dealing with binary digits don't have yet?

Re:No tits ? (1)

black3d (1648913) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285144)

All the female geeks migrated... http://xkcd.com/624/ [xkcd.com]

Obligatory comic that's not Penny Arcade or xkcd (1)

An Ominous Coward (13324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284870)

Obligatory Leisuretown

http://www.leisuretown.com/library/qac/28.html [leisuretown.com]

Yes, we had someone at work do this, and yes, from that day on we referenced him as F.B. (in polite company).

Re:Obligatory comic that's not Penny Arcade or xkc (1)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285156)

Clearly, calling someone "fagbot" is a mature and professional response when someone criticizes your source code. I suppose if they actually found it funny, maybe it's OK, but I can't imagine deciding to call someone this.

Re:Obligatory comic that's not Penny Arcade or xkc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285288)

gknoy@anasazisystems.com

maybe php programs just don't comment? (1)

ludwigf (1208730) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284912)

> Note that I ripped an equal amount of commit messages per language

How about to normalize the numbers not per commit but per word? Maybe c++ programmers just happen to write a detailed commit message while php progammers tend to write "bugfix" without anything else.

Irkedness rating (1)

anyaristow (1448609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284944)

Here's my comment irkedness rating:

// oink - a temporary piece of code - oinks need further attention
// crap - something I'd rather not have to do - needs further attention, and should be considered broken code
// shit - okay, now I'm pissed - if this gets to release, there's a major problem
// fuck - if these aren't resolved by the end of the day I'm giving the fuck up

general assesment (1)

tudorl (841940) | more than 3 years ago | (#35284958)

- C++, JS and Ruby seem to generate most profanity
- Python & PHP compete for for least profanity
- C is somewhere in the middle :))

Re:general assesment (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285264)

Or maybe in Python and PHP the code is already such a profanity that the programmers don't consider it necessary to add more of it in the comments ...

Why is Python so low? (1)

heretic108 (454817) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285004)

I would have expected a lot more bolorful language from the python bommunity.
Silly bunts!

Re:Why is Python so low? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285408)

It's low because we don't have to waste our lives typing useless semi colons, curly braces and the word end.

must bring balance to the Force (2)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285012)

So how long will it be, before we see an influx of profanities in PHP and Python, just to ruin their squeaky-clean images?

Different kind of apps (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285038)

In PHP... your "comments" have a way of being read/interpreted by the web server, the same system that is displaying the web pages to users. Your comments are always in some danger of being exposed to humans (just like the source code).

Whereas, C++ programs are compiled, always. The end user never has access to comments in the source code, unless you have a very very strange compilation script that embeds some code as a string.

Also, there is the fact that PHP coders are notorious for confusing uncommented code. Instead of swearing in the comments, they make you swear after trying to read their code, which has zero meaningful comments, and possibly a few comments that will be just plain wrong or confuse the hell out of you.

Profanity directed at IE in Javavscript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285092)

Looking back on my years writing JS for various web apps, I'm not surprised that JS is up there. If only that it were the comments for each of the many differences in IE's JS engine.

Jquery may be dumming down the new generation through abstraction, but I can't help feeling relief thinking about all those niggly little IEisms, which I no longer have to deal with.

Take into account (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285098)

I think most people don't consider that most of the projects at GitHub are written in Ruby and JS and in a very low percentage in PHP.

sample size, selection bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285102)

1) 1 million commit logs, but only 210 "hits" distributed among the 8 independent variable categories. Not great, since a couple "colorful" individuals, or developers with digestive tract problems or lots of baggage on their minds, could easily turn the graph.

2) I would expect that projects (and by extension, programming languages) that attract multiple developers, especially more than a handful, would be fertile ground for developer misunderstanding and/or disagreement and, hence profanity. So to some extent that's what these charts may be measuring.

Visual Basic (2)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285170)

My first thought was, "What no Visual Basic"? Then I realized it was redundant, Visual Basic is profanity.

Am I missing something?! (1)

twebb72 (903169) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285202)

Honestly. I wouldn't ever consider checking in code that contained profanities. Same goes for test data and exceptions. Honestly, when a program fails, its not acceptable that the user see profanities. Its the mark of a poor programmer.

A bad craftsman blames his tools. Cursing in code or in comments is about as unprofessional as you can get.

not really surpricing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285266)

The C++ developers are least likely to expect their code to be read by the end-user (or anyone else). While the PHP programmers are most likely to have their code read by the end-user.

Re:not really surpricing (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285492)

I would have expected the JavaScript programmers to have their code most likely to be read by the end-user. After all, unlike most other source code, sending the JavaScript source to the end user is mandatory.

Sample size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285368)

Most of these were probably swayed by a single coder of that specific language. Duh.

Accessability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285376)

I would hazard to guess that the accessability of the source files directly affects how relaxed an approach one takes to comments. I imagine that client-side scripting languages like javascript would have the least profanity, since the comments you write are delivered direct to your clients. PHP would probably carry a bit of this stigma, even though the comments are hidden in the server -- plus there's still a chance that the programmer's client is the guy running the server, so the client in that case can still see the comments. C++, however, not only protects its source files by multiple stages of compilation and obfuscation and magification, it is also the syntactically single worst programming language ever expressed upon the world*, so the programmer both: feels the desire to swear in comments, and is pretty damned sure the client won't ever see it.

* perl doesn't count, it's not even a language; it's an excuse for "certain types" to feel superior to the rest of society, while simultaneously protecting society from overexposure to those people

Re:Accessability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35285474)

RTFA; javascript is way up there.

Alternate hypothesis: it's on GitHub.

I know TFA says "I ripped an equal amount of commit messages per language so the results aren't based on how many projects there are per language," suggesting that it's some sort of sample-based average; but actually it just tells me he's using a selective sample to produce his results. GitHub is full of Ruby-writing Why-fans and scripters. There will always be a bias towards Ruby and Javascript, not because of his randomly selected samples, but because of population bias. Call it "Comment Profanity by Language in GitHub" and I'd be happy.

Otherwise, if you were to let the article title imply "Comment Profanity of Language in Open Source Projects" you would have to expand the sample space to include all the other known source repositories out there.

I bet there'd be a lot more C and Perl* swears if you searched SourceForge.

*more than zero

personal explanations (1)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285402)

In my experience, Rubyists think profanity is cute ever since the famous DHH "Fuck You" slide.

Misconfigured Apaches dump PHP source code out all over the helpless user. Perhaps PHP developers swear less because they expect more eyes on the code due to this kind of accident.

To the uninformed: (3)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35285488)

Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker, Tits

to you too!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>