Ask HN: Why is the source folder called 'src'?
Many languages and frameworks advocate (or even enforce) a standard folder structure that includes a 'src' folder.
I always found 'src' to be quite "ugly" and also possibly confusing to beginners, who might think it's an abbreviation of a multi-word phrase instead of a contraction. In the end, it only reduces the word by 3 letters.
Why isn't it simply called 'source'? Does it have historic reasons? Or is it just laziness?
15 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 42.4 ms ] threadThat's why UNIX uses very short command names like 'rm' and 'ls'.
One presumes calling it "src" is in historical alignment with UNIX using short names wherever possible to reduce typing (and the possibility for typos)
See also: "ls" (list files), "mv" (move), "cp" (copy), "/usr" (userland-specific items), "/bin" (binaries), and on and on
Originally, way, way back in the day, there was good reason to be so terse. The first UNIX machines had literal teletypes for terminals; printers with moving parts. Every extra character meant wear and tear, paper, ink, and especially, time.
Not _the_ reason, but a reason for not changing.
Minor sarcasm above.