What you are focusing on is perfectly idiomatic Java. I'll bet for most Java slingers, quite beautiful.
Other languages with other standards, yep, nasty.
Language wars are tiring, pedantic and really not part of this discussion on schedulers.
Other languages with other standards, yep, nasty.
Language wars are tiring, pedantic and really not part of this discussion on schedulers.
Or just standards at all.
I'm sorry but when you read lines like this:
> if ((i = (r - j) & m) >= 0 && i < n && (q = ws[i]) != null) {}
with 6 single character long variable names and 1 two character long variable name, there is something to be said about code quality.
And this is a rule that is true across programming languages.
This is a typical example of written once / never modified or single maintainer code and it's a bad practice, especially for open source projects.
If you really think something is wrong with it, post ideas for longer names that will clarify and not substantially impact density. I would probably conventionally use "n0" and "n1" instead of "m" and "n" to represent "n-1", "n" - but the usage he has is consistent throughout the file, which is more than I can say of my stuff sometimes.