4 ms·

> only a masochist with OCD thinks paths that long or deep are needed I'm surprised you can't imagine working on a path that deep. Path arrangements are freque

> only a masochist with OCD thinks paths that long or deep are needed I'm surprised you can't imagine working on a path that deep. Path arrangements are frequently thrust upon you in work environments and if you have a lot of work (or a lot of people sharing the same folder hierarchy), you may need a deep path structure to keep it organized. Attacking people as "masochists" because their paths are difficult to type seems unfair. As for your example though, Windows usually shortens path components longer than 8 characters as the path gets longer (so "Program Files" becomes "PROGRA~1") so long single components aren't as problematic as many shorter components.

johnchristopher 13y ago
I am pretty sure it's more for historical reasons than a solution from MS for long filenames on win32. It's due to the application writing to the file-system, not the OS. Earlier DOS FS (and others) were sometimes limited to 8 characters + 3 for extension and Windows just used to shorten filenames when writing to those FS. But to these days it still causes some problems for legacy software and you might see some PROGRA~1 hanging around but it's not from the OS, it's from the application (or its old out-date API for FS access) doing the shortening to fit the long filename it was given into an 8 characters word it thinks the FS can handle. Windows's file explorer or file picker doesn't shorten path or filenames when downloading long filename from the web for instance (via Firefox or IE).
lifeisstillgood 13y ago
Oh I can imagine working that deep - and the issue is never "if only we had MAXPATHLEN set higher our business processes would magically be more efficient". Paths that deep that are meant as markers for humans to read are a pathological case - if you don't at a minimum put a web server in front with a folder to human-readable name in front then all the other benefits of automation are likely to pass you by too. In short, paths that deep show you have humans trying to do what computers are better at. Schumpter will be round later to have a word.

johnchristopher 13y ago

I am pretty sure it's more for historical reasons than a solution from MS for long filenames on win32. It's due to the application writing to the file-system, not the OS. Earlier DOS FS (and others) were sometimes limited to 8 characters + 3 for extension and Windows just used to shorten filenames when writing to those FS. But to these days it still causes some problems for legacy software and you might see some PROGRA~1 hanging around but it's not from the OS, it's from the application (or its old out-date API for FS access) doing the shortening to fit the long filename it was given into an 8 characters word it thinks the FS can handle. Windows's file explorer or file picker doesn't shorten path or filenames when downloading long filename from the web for instance (via Firefox or IE).

lifeisstillgood 13y ago

Oh I can imagine working that deep - and the issue is never "if only we had MAXPATHLEN set higher our business processes would magically be more efficient". Paths that deep that are meant as markers for humans to read are a pathological case - if you don't at a minimum put a web server in front with a folder to human-readable name in front then all the other benefits of automation are likely to pass you by too. In short, paths that deep show you have humans trying to do what computers are better at. Schumpter will be round later to have a word.