Shakespeare wrote texts about 0.1 M lines of in his life long. Linux kernel already over 20M lines and its speed still increasing.
20M lines of codes are not a human readable amount. I think we need a program to read very long code.
They're called computers.
>>55294722
Nah, just need less bloat.
You don't need to read every line.
>>55294722
I think you need to learn a little bit more about how software engineering actually works.
>>55294844
Do you have some source to learn about that? I'm not a CS or CE student, so I was always curious about how humongously large program codes are managed and modified properly.
>>55294883
Uh, different people work on different peices of the source code? Not all 20M lines are condensed in a single file (I haven't checked out the Linux tree extensively but i would hope not) I'm assuming you meant how they manage it all, so look up how a VCS works. Last time I checked the mainline Linux repository uses git, which works on a diff system (aka it only modifies what is changed) each time a change is made you aren't uploading 20M lines of code.
>>55294941
Thx, Anon. However, what I was curious about wasn't about VCS, but it was how developers understand the structure of linux kernel without readling whole codes. I presume that there is a some manuals or documents (which maybe I can call as meta-sources(?) and probably more briefer than the whole codes) to understand kernel codes. We can change shakespeares works and produce parodies of them, but I think, in case of the program code, it is more difficult because program language isn't ambiguous structure like natural language, and the structure of linux is not abstract but substantial. However, linux kernel developing seems to be working with the way of the parody of shakespeare. That is what I surprised and what I curious about.
>>55295210
>but it was how developers understand the structure of linux kernel without readling whole codes
Ever wonder what could be in the file "linux/fs/ext4/inode.c"? Here's a hint, it ain't the fucking scheduler.
>understand the structure of linux kernel without readling whole codes
A "code" is not a unit of measurement. You can no more read a whole code than "read a whole literature."
>presume that there is a some manuals or documents (which maybe I can call as meta-sources(?)
it's just fucking called documentation
>We can change shakespeares works and produce parodies of them, but I think, in case of the program code, it is more difficult because program language isn't ambiguous structure like natural language, and the structure of linux is not abstract but substantial.
English grammar has syntax. Parodies of Shakespeare are syntactically valid, just you can change the meaning of a function in a syntactically valid way. You can even have jokes in sourcecode, see dumb pseudocode twitter jokes or C+= examples. It's a shit medium to do so because programming languages convey instructions.
>However, linux kernel developing seems to be working with the way of the parody of shakespeare.
You're not making any goddamn sense. None of this does.
>>55295392
Helpful. thanks. I think I need more practical coding experience... and plz dont bully.
>>55294722
99% of the linux kernel is the drivers
In other words shit no one needs to read.
>>55295472
If your statement is true, it saved me. I tried to read whole code of linux and contribute to GNU Hurd :)
