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

Filed under:

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 of TimerCounter1InterruptFlag), ICR1H (instead of InputCapture1High), DDRB (instead of DataDirectionPortB), etc.
  • .NET CLR instruction set (2002): bge.s (instead of branch-if-greater.signed), etc.

Aren't the longer, non-cryptic names easier to work with?

© Programmers or respective owner

Related posts about naming