Why are cryptic short identifiers still so common in low-level programming?
Posted
by
romkyns
on Programmers
See other posts from Programmers
or by romkyns
Published on 2012-08-28T21:35:10Z
Indexed on
2012/08/28
21:51 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 248
naming
There used to be very good reasons for keeping instruction / register names short. Those reasons no longer apply, but short cryptic names are still very common in low-level programming.
Why is this? Is it just because old habits are hard to break, or are there better reasons?
For example:
- Atmel ATMEGA32U2 (2010?):
TIFR1
(instead ofTimerCounter1InterruptFlag
),ICR1H
(instead ofInputCapture1High
),DDRB
(instead ofDataDirectionPortB
), etc. - .NET CLR instruction set (2002):
bge.s
(instead ofbranch-if-greater.signed
), etc.
Aren't the longer, non-cryptic names easier to work with?
© Programmers or respective owner