You copied that function without understanding why it does what it does, and as a result your code is flawed & inefficient. This poor practice is a pattern I’ve noticed.
Less likely to be effective. There’s a good chance that the submitter won’t get the message, and that they’ll submit another pull request, five minutes later, with the exact same issue that made the first PR to be rejected. And again. Again. Again.
More insulting. Now you aren’t just saying “your code is garbage”; you’re saying “your code is garbage and you’re a fragile little thing that will break apart if handled incorrectly”.
As likely to create drama as the original verbiage, given that the drama is originated in human nature - we humans want to believe (even if outright false) that we’re “contributing”, even when we are not.
Thanks for the detailed response. We’ll disagree on this.
Points 3 & 1 seem to contradict each other a little bit. The modified verbiage obfuscates the message in a way which only impedes understanding aiding growth but not understanding evoking drama?
RE: #2, your entire response was very polite. You could’ve got the same point across by calling the approach I demonstrated stupid. FWIW, I didn’t feel coddled by your lack of disrespect.
Any psychologists running studies and concluding the most abrasive critiques are most effective? Any schools teaching the Linus method?
I didn’t call your approach stupid because I don’t think that it’s stupid, even if I disagree with it.
The modified verbiage obfuscates the message in a way which only impedes understanding aiding growth but not understanding evoking drama?
If the message wasn’t delivered, there’s a high chance of further interactions that might create drama in the future. The quote in the OP is an example of that - in the original context there’s an “AGAIN” that shows that it was not the first time that Steven Rostedt submitted a patch with the exact same issue.
So I believe that, even if you might get less drama now because the message wasn’t understood, you’ll end getting it later anyway.
Also, Torvalds’ message does promote growth, if read fully. Even with the “your code is garbage”, he’s still explaining:
which function should be used there, atomic64_add_return()
the purpose of get_next_ino() and other VSF functions
that Rostedt is addressing what Torvalds believe to be a “made up problem”
that Rostedt should read further info on the core functions, before using them
it’s just that the quote picks the spicy bit and leaves the boring carb behind.
Heaven help the community if “flawed & inefficient”, “poor practice…pattern” aren’t direct enough feedback! Linus’s style being an outlier suggests polite criticism is enough to make the world turn.
I think you could even simply replace capslock GARBAGE with capslock [FUNDAMENTALLY] FLAWED, leave the “AGAIN”, and it’d be OK if harsh.
Glad he did some teaching after the flaming in any case.
Heaven help the community if “flawed & inefficient”, “poor practice…pattern” aren’t direct enough feedback!
This was not directed towards the Linux community. It was directed towards a Google engineer. The community is the ones that you’re indirectly proposing that deserve worse software for the sake of that part of Google’s corporation.
And “worse” is not just a matter of “oh, I got a kernel panic. Damn. Reboot.” It’s actually serious shit; that kernel code will end being used in things from medical applications to sending Ingenuity to Mars. Worse code might literally mean “we detected your cancer too late, last time you were here the MRI wasn’t working”.
He is not even getting personal in this case dammit. I concede that getting personal (he does it sometimes) would be over-the-topic, but in this case he’s insulting the code, not the person.
Linus’s style being an outlier suggests polite criticism is enough to make the world turn.
Torvalds’ style is an outlier but so is the kernel. And the kernel being an outlier suggests that harsh criticism actually works.
Most of our [we = human beings, including you and me] production is garbage, even if acknowledging this offends our sensibilities.
It’s almost like you guys [you + people across this thread] want to believe that only the carrot is effective. The stick is also effective, even if you don’t want to believe that it is.
I think you could even simply replace capslock GARBAGE with capslock [FUNDAMENTALLY] FLAWED, leave the “AGAIN”, and it’d be OK if harsh.
Dunno if you noticed, but this is actually ruder in hindsight.
Torvalds’ approach: “your code is garbage.”
Your approach: “your code is garbage but since you’re a fragile little piece of junk I can’t tell you that directly, I got to mince some words.”
And odds are that, if he did it the way that you’re proposing, people would complain again that he’s being rude, and expect him to mince words even further.
Glad he did some teaching after the flaming in any case.
He did it before, during, and after bashing Rostedt.
What’s your opinion on this alternative verbiage?
It will fall on deaf ears
It’s garbage.
My opinion is that it is:
Thanks for the detailed response. We’ll disagree on this.
Points 3 & 1 seem to contradict each other a little bit. The modified verbiage obfuscates the message in a way which only impedes understanding aiding growth but not understanding evoking drama?
RE: #2, your entire response was very polite. You could’ve got the same point across by calling the approach I demonstrated stupid. FWIW, I didn’t feel coddled by your lack of disrespect.
Any psychologists running studies and concluding the most abrasive critiques are most effective? Any schools teaching the Linus method?
I didn’t call your approach stupid because I don’t think that it’s stupid, even if I disagree with it.
If the message wasn’t delivered, there’s a high chance of further interactions that might create drama in the future. The quote in the OP is an example of that - in the original context there’s an “AGAIN” that shows that it was not the first time that Steven Rostedt submitted a patch with the exact same issue.
So I believe that, even if you might get less drama now because the message wasn’t understood, you’ll end getting it later anyway.
Also, Torvalds’ message does promote growth, if read fully. Even with the “your code is garbage”, he’s still explaining:
atomic64_add_return()get_next_ino()and other VSF functionsit’s just that the quote picks the spicy bit and leaves the boring carb behind.
Heaven help the community if “flawed & inefficient”, “poor practice…pattern” aren’t direct enough feedback! Linus’s style being an outlier suggests polite criticism is enough to make the world turn.
I think you could even simply replace capslock GARBAGE with capslock [FUNDAMENTALLY] FLAWED, leave the “AGAIN”, and it’d be OK if harsh.
Glad he did some teaching after the flaming in any case.
This was not directed towards the Linux community. It was directed towards a Google engineer. The community is the ones that you’re indirectly proposing that deserve worse software for the sake of that part of Google’s corporation.
And “worse” is not just a matter of “oh, I got a kernel panic. Damn. Reboot.” It’s actually serious shit; that kernel code will end being used in things from medical applications to sending Ingenuity to Mars. Worse code might literally mean “we detected your cancer too late, last time you were here the MRI wasn’t working”.
He is not even getting personal in this case dammit. I concede that getting personal (he does it sometimes) would be over-the-topic, but in this case he’s insulting the code, not the person.
Torvalds’ style is an outlier but so is the kernel. And the kernel being an outlier suggests that harsh criticism actually works.
Most of our [we = human beings, including you and me] production is garbage, even if acknowledging this offends our sensibilities.
It’s almost like you guys [you + people across this thread] want to believe that only the carrot is effective. The stick is also effective, even if you don’t want to believe that it is.
Dunno if you noticed, but this is actually ruder in hindsight.
And odds are that, if he did it the way that you’re proposing, people would complain again that he’s being rude, and expect him to mince words even further.
He did it before, during, and after bashing Rostedt.