relaunchd: a portable clone of launchd

[dan_partelly]

>>It depends on how you define what is a good level of verboseness,
>> and you can have that in pretty much any language.  

Sure, I get your point, and you are perfectly right. 

Winodws ntoskrnl is clearly C , but I am extremely sure that
their verbosity (or perceived verbosity) is an asset , not a liability,
for their source code maintenance. Some argue that MS systems team botched

with the hungarian notation, and the app team used it better, but ... 
even so I found it useful.   
 

And yeah,  Cutler didn't let any smarty-pants say "oh, "XX_CREATE_XX" is
too verbose,
let's contract it to "XX_CREAT_XX".





On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:20:02 -0500 (EST), Daniel Eischen
<deischen at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2016, Dan Partelly wrote:
> 
>> Verbose is not bad , Konstantin .  I actually prefer verbose source. 
>> It is easy to read and understand. It is preferable all day long to 
>> clever hacks and obfuscated ways of writing code
>>
>> Ill tell you one thing. Years ago, when Ms Leaked on their site 
>> ntoskrnl.exe symbols with private debug information , I dint had too 
>> much trouble understanding a lot of the implementation details from 
>> the kernel , exactly because MS is verbose. And that .. in WinDbg 
>> assembly. The source would have been much much more easier to read.
>>
>> Yeah, MS’s APIs are not the best I give you that. But regarding 
>> *readability* , Windows is leaps and bounds ahead of any Unix I seen. 
>> It is extremely easy to figure out what a certain function does, how 
>> they use data structures, and what the members of said data structures 
>> represent.
>>
>> I like verbosity. Makes figuring things easier, makes maintenance 
>> easier. I frankly hope to spend as little of possible of my life 
>> reading terse source code. This is also why I like Ada language. Its a 
>> joy to read Ada source.
> 
> Ok, speaking as a software engineer for 31 years and has been
> developing and maintaining Ada programs for the last 25 of those
> years...  Ada is just a language, I've seen both bad design and
> good design in it, as well as in C and Java.  I've seen massive
> over verboseness in Ada and it makes maintaining it a nightmare.
> When your coding guidelines have a maximum line length of 132
> or greater characters, and lines _routinely_ go _well_ over 80
> characters, because of package hierarchy, and package and
> subprogram (methods) names being very long, you know something
> is wrong.
> 
> It depends on how you define what is a good level of verboseness,
> and you can have that in pretty much any language.  You just
> need to herd cats to follow the guidelines.
> 
> I echo the sentiments about CORBA.  Being forced to use
> bloated middleware to do something simple...  I have to
> stop thinking about it because it makes me angry ;-)