4 ms·

Reddit source code

127 points by anonfunction 12y ago

halayli 12y ago
It's a pain that they are stuck with pylons, an unmaintained framework.
- Luyt 12y ago
  Why would that be a pain? Apparently it works for them, and is stable enough. Now, if pylons turns out to be a roadblock to an expansion they want to make, that'd be a reason to swap it out for something different.
  - halayli 12y ago
    It's a pain because they have no community support, new security bugs can go unnoticed and many other issues that can arise because of lack of maintenance. Pylons most probably won't roadblock them but will definitely bring a lot more challenge.
jzwinck 12y ago
What causes people to need to sprinkle license boilerplate everywhere, including in files which are otherwise completely empty (like r2/r2/config/__init__.py), and then to have to update them every year? See this commit: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/90cfcaaecc56cf35e75824e69793fe596771d0d9 https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/90cfcaaecc56cf35e758... It just seems to defy reason that we must make humans increment a number every year in every file in our projects, nevermind the fact that the top 20-30 lines of every file in our projects has been taken over by stuff most readers don't actually need to read (again and again). Is this really the best we can do without somehow letting the bad guys take our home away due to some licensing gotcha? Like simply having this at the top of each file: # see the top-level LICENSE file
- je42 12y ago
  empty __init__.py declare a python module. see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/448271/what-is-init-py-for http://stackoverflow.com/questions/448271/what-is-init-py-fo...
  - jzwinck 12y ago
    I am well aware of why an empty __init__.py is necessary. It is less clear why one must add license boilerplate to such a file: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/config/__init__.py https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/config/__... > you may not use this file except in compliance with the License This is patently absurd: the file contains no content other than the license itself, and arguably its name (which is shared by millions of other __init__.py files around the world).
    - je42 12y ago
      Ah. Sorry, I didn't understand this point. I agree it is totally superfluous to declare a license on an empty file. But I assume that they have this header on every file as part of their internal process. Hence, they don't make an exception for empty files. I would book it as a cost of this process. Also, it is handy if somebody starts appending to it ( i.e. https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/lib/authorize/__init__.py https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/lib/autho... ) , they don't need to take care of that the license is correct.
    - jvoorhis 12y ago
      An empty file with no surrounding context is just an empty file, but is an otherwise blank file embedded within proprietary software whose presence is required for the software to function somehow public domain? The contents of the file are trivial, but it's existence may not be.
- RKoutnik 12y ago
  If you think that's bad, you should see the many people who tried to copyright an empty file: http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html
  - ambrop7 12y ago
    I hold second place :) https://github.com/ambrop72/aprinter/blob/master/aprinter/EndNamespace.h https://github.com/ambrop72/aprinter/blob/master/aprinter/En...
- zhng 12y ago
  The legal department, not the programmer, probably dictates that the copyright headers must be in each and every file.
  - deathanatos 12y ago
    I know this ruins any potential value of the intellectual property but… …why not just put a mention in the top-level license that all empty (0 byte long) __init__.py files are in the public domain? (Yes, yes, it's less confusing to license the entire thing under one license. But attempting to assert copyright on an empty file is humorous.)
- buro9 12y ago
  I do this too and so why do I do it? In essence it's because there is a very large number of lazy programmers who live by cut and paste. We're not just talking the "I've found a solution on Stack Overflow and will use that", but more "I've searched Github for keyword + language and this file does what I need". The files are copied into their projects in its entirety, sometimes whole libraries are, and those programmers never bother to check how a project is licensed. Once this process has been repeated a few times the code is firmly detached from the licence and any original license is ignored. If I use the suggestion you make, then by them copying files into their project they have changed the licence of a file (it now inherits whatever their project uses). Though I do like the idea of a stub instead of the full thing: # Licence: BSD (3-clause) https://github.com/owner/project/LICENCE.md That would be enough to describe the licence for the file in a way that survives cut and paste, whilst also providing a URL for the full licence details. In fact, I will now probably shift to that.
  - taspeotis 12y ago
    > In essence it's because there is a very large number of lazy programmers who live by cut and paste. I've had programmers copy and paste GPL'd code into proprietary projects I'm responsible for. It's not laziness it's ignorance. "What's a GPL?"
    - fit2rule 12y ago
      I've shipped hard product with GPL onboard and in use. Its great! I've also complied, 100%. Also great! Laziness, ignorance, irresponsibility. Or: usage.
      - taspeotis 12y ago
        > I've also complied, 100% The cards I'm dealt are "proprietary projects". I comply 100% too: we don't ship GPL'd code. We've gotten close, though (c/o what I mention above).
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    Programmers who copy and paste can always copy the fragment they need, no need to pay attention to headers. Ultimately licensing relies on people operating in good faith. Even without explicit licensing, there is an implicit copyright on works such as source code, so taking code from random places without checking out the license is never warranted either way. > If I use the suggestion you make, then by them copying files into their project they have changed the licence of a file (it now inherits whatever their project uses). No, the only one who can actually change the license of a file is the rights holder, so the person who copied the code while ignoring the license misrepresents matters but does not change anything about how the work is licencsed.
- swartkrans 12y ago
  > What causes people to need to sprinkle license boilerplate everywhere, including in files which are otherwise completely empty The Apache 2 license library has language that indicates the use is to put bits of the license in every file. That's why. It's easy enough to maintain a license at the top of files with an IDE like IntelliJ
- simonmales 12y ago
  It is an eye sore for me as well. The CakePHP project has done away with yearly update by replacing the year(s) with '(c)'. https://github.com/cakephp/cakephp/commit/7b860debe4731a9cbc3abcdeacb7f1efd5be4a7c https://github.com/cakephp/cakephp/commit/7b860debe4731a9cbc... I remember watching a Stephen Fry interview who mentioned that placing the Copyright symbol once on your piece of work is sufficient to claim Copyright. But is placing the symbol once on a book, the same as placing a Copyright/License block once in a project directory?
  - iherbig 12y ago
    As a matter of fact, you do not need to even declare copyright anywhere in the text to claim copyright (at least in the US). Copyright exists from the moment of the work's creation. [1] And placing a copyright notice does not afford you any other benefits without registration anyway. Once you've registered with the US Copyright Office, you may place a copyright notice if you want, but your work is still protected even if you don't. [2] [1] http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register [2] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#401 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#401
    - diydsp 12y ago
      I'm dating a lawyer. According to them, what you've written is true, however, speaking practically, there is a significant advantage to be gained from presenting evidence. If two parties show up to a dispute with identical source code, the one that has a copyright in it has an advantage. Sure, it's easily faked, and that could be argued, however, it would be trying to argue away evidence that exists which is much more difficult than arguing in favor of something that does exist. So if you want to lock in a victory and reduce court time, use copyright notices (and other legal notices like trespassing signs, etc.) liberally.
- icebraining 12y ago
  It just seems to defy reason that we must make humans increment a number Ah, but why do you assume a human did that? Writing a script to update the year in all files doesn't take more than a few minutes to write. Chances are he simply ran "update_license_year" and committed. Likewise for having a license on every single file: it may simply be a git hook that preprends it to every file with a certain extension.
- yaeger 12y ago
  >Is this really the best we can do Perhaps in places like github. With central versioning systems where the server is under our control we simply run daemons that check the copyright. Each user can define how it should work for them. If copyright is not okay the user can either a) have the submit fail so he is notified that it needs fixing or b) let it be fixed automatically by the daemon. This fixing also includes adding a copyright notice to new files that didn't have any. Nicely defined depending on the file type. The implementation was a one time effort which now saves us from doing exactly what they are doing now. Manually going through thousands of files to fix a copyright.
fletchowns 12y ago
Where's the Vagrantfile?
- bdcravens 12y ago
  On your computer until you git push and submit your pull request? :-)
- frdmn 12y ago
  https://github.com/ajacksified/reddit-vagrant https://github.com/ajacksified/reddit-vagrant
EGreg 12y ago
Wow I am impressed that a commercial social networking software company open sources their entire codebase.
- lclarkmichalek 12y ago
  They don't open source 100%; the anti spam and vote obfucation stuff isn't there
  - jsmthrowaway 12y ago
    Recent changes nearly dropped the obfuscation stuff in its entirety, anyway.
  - im_dario 12y ago
    What else is missing? It should be stated in the README.
- rbreve 12y ago
  This is not new, reddit has been open sourced since 2008 http://www.redditblog.com/2008/06/reddit-goes-open-source.html http://www.redditblog.com/2008/06/reddit-goes-open-source.ht...
- eloisant 12y ago
  To be honest their codesource isn't probably worth much, it's their userbase and traffic that makes up all of their value.
iowai 12y ago
I once was an intern in a company that wanted to rewrite the whole Reddit code in .net. The founder was a charming person and managed to raise a huge pile of money. "We can redo this with current technology and elegant design! We will run circles around Reddit!". We had a great time. Free snacks, lot's of parties, luxurious office furniture, skateboarding in the hall... In the end, the company ran out of money before the product reached a useful state. Good times. It has been some time since then and I have a "normal" job now. Last thing I heard about the founder is that he started a new vc backed company destined to run circles around something.
- cpach 12y ago
  That’s odd. As if the programming language itself is what makes Reddit what it is :)
  - weego 12y ago
    Unfortunately from my experience, people thinking that background technology choices can give them a consumer advantage is not that uncommon.
    - kysol 12y ago
      That or more hardware to overcome bottlenecks caused by bad code. "It's running slow, we need more memory!". After some investigation, really... you've got 8 joins without using keys, and you're getting paid more than us how?
    - mdonohue 12y ago
      FYI, that includes pg's thinking on the use of lisp for viaweb http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
    - coldtea 12y ago
      >FYI, that includes pg's thinking on the use of lisp for viaweb Yeah, I for one think this was equally flawed. People have made succesful and quickly iteratable web services/apps in all kinds of languages, including Perl and PHP. Plus, one single data source like pg had is never that accurate, plus the fact he and Martin were already Lisp guru s helped them in their use of it.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nttdocomo 12y ago
Dear lord that JavaScript is painful to read. I want to submit a pull request and fix all their semicolons.
- kysol 12y ago
  Not for/against the code formatting, just giving you a target (just hope you know who you're going after) :D https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/8e2737dab409c46d688cf5065a89c6dd0df44dde https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/8e2737dab409c46d688c...
- madlee 12y ago
  FWIW, there _is_ a proper styleguide now, it just hasn't been retroactively applied to older js. https://github.com/reddit/styleguide/tree/master/javascript https://github.com/reddit/styleguide/tree/master/javascript
  - nttdocomo 12y ago
    Nice, looks like they went with a slightly modified version of airbnb's js styleguide. That's what we use at work.
fit2rule 12y ago
Isn't reddit already a re-write of slashdot and digg and so on .. and on it goes? Me, I see no difference between reddit now, and USENET of the 80's/90's. Except that reddit isn't distributed, by nature, but rather .. empirical .. I still use USENET. Its a quite place now the kids have all grown up and left the basements...
Grue3 12y ago
Would've been more interesting if they released the original, Common Lisp code.

Reddit source code

127 points by anonfunction 12y ago

halayli 12y ago

It's a pain that they are stuck with pylons, an unmaintained framework.

Luyt 12y ago
Why would that be a pain? Apparently it works for them, and is stable enough. Now, if pylons turns out to be a roadblock to an expansion they want to make, that'd be a reason to swap it out for something different.
- halayli 12y ago
  It's a pain because they have no community support, new security bugs can go unnoticed and many other issues that can arise because of lack of maintenance. Pylons most probably won't roadblock them but will definitely bring a lot more challenge.

jzwinck 12y ago

What causes people to need to sprinkle license boilerplate everywhere, including in files which are otherwise completely empty (like r2/r2/config/__init__.py), and then to have to update them every year? See this commit: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/90cfcaaecc56cf35e75824e69793fe596771d0d9 https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/90cfcaaecc56cf35e758... It just seems to defy reason that we must make humans increment a number every year in every file in our projects, nevermind the fact that the top 20-30 lines of every file in our projects has been taken over by stuff most readers don't actually need to read (again and again). Is this really the best we can do without somehow letting the bad guys take our home away due to some licensing gotcha? Like simply having this at the top of each file: # see the top-level LICENSE file

je42 12y ago
empty __init__.py declare a python module. see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/448271/what-is-init-py-for http://stackoverflow.com/questions/448271/what-is-init-py-fo...
- jzwinck 12y ago
  I am well aware of why an empty __init__.py is necessary. It is less clear why one must add license boilerplate to such a file: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/config/__init__.py https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/config/__... > you may not use this file except in compliance with the License This is patently absurd: the file contains no content other than the license itself, and arguably its name (which is shared by millions of other __init__.py files around the world).
  - je42 12y ago
    Ah. Sorry, I didn't understand this point. I agree it is totally superfluous to declare a license on an empty file. But I assume that they have this header on every file as part of their internal process. Hence, they don't make an exception for empty files. I would book it as a cost of this process. Also, it is handy if somebody starts appending to it ( i.e. https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/lib/authorize/__init__.py https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/lib/autho... ) , they don't need to take care of that the license is correct.
  - jvoorhis 12y ago
    An empty file with no surrounding context is just an empty file, but is an otherwise blank file embedded within proprietary software whose presence is required for the software to function somehow public domain? The contents of the file are trivial, but it's existence may not be.
RKoutnik 12y ago
If you think that's bad, you should see the many people who tried to copyright an empty file: http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/humor/ATT_Copyright_true.html
- ambrop7 12y ago
  I hold second place :) https://github.com/ambrop72/aprinter/blob/master/aprinter/EndNamespace.h https://github.com/ambrop72/aprinter/blob/master/aprinter/En...
zhng 12y ago
The legal department, not the programmer, probably dictates that the copyright headers must be in each and every file.
- deathanatos 12y ago
  I know this ruins any potential value of the intellectual property but… …why not just put a mention in the top-level license that all empty (0 byte long) __init__.py files are in the public domain? (Yes, yes, it's less confusing to license the entire thing under one license. But attempting to assert copyright on an empty file is humorous.)
buro9 12y ago
I do this too and so why do I do it? In essence it's because there is a very large number of lazy programmers who live by cut and paste. We're not just talking the "I've found a solution on Stack Overflow and will use that", but more "I've searched Github for keyword + language and this file does what I need". The files are copied into their projects in its entirety, sometimes whole libraries are, and those programmers never bother to check how a project is licensed. Once this process has been repeated a few times the code is firmly detached from the licence and any original license is ignored. If I use the suggestion you make, then by them copying files into their project they have changed the licence of a file (it now inherits whatever their project uses). Though I do like the idea of a stub instead of the full thing: # Licence: BSD (3-clause) https://github.com/owner/project/LICENCE.md That would be enough to describe the licence for the file in a way that survives cut and paste, whilst also providing a URL for the full licence details. In fact, I will now probably shift to that.
- taspeotis 12y ago
  > In essence it's because there is a very large number of lazy programmers who live by cut and paste. I've had programmers copy and paste GPL'd code into proprietary projects I'm responsible for. It's not laziness it's ignorance. "What's a GPL?"
  - fit2rule 12y ago
    I've shipped hard product with GPL onboard and in use. Its great! I've also complied, 100%. Also great! Laziness, ignorance, irresponsibility. Or: usage.
    - taspeotis 12y ago
      > I've also complied, 100% The cards I'm dealt are "proprietary projects". I comply 100% too: we don't ship GPL'd code. We've gotten close, though (c/o what I mention above).
- andreasvc 12y ago
  Programmers who copy and paste can always copy the fragment they need, no need to pay attention to headers. Ultimately licensing relies on people operating in good faith. Even without explicit licensing, there is an implicit copyright on works such as source code, so taking code from random places without checking out the license is never warranted either way. > If I use the suggestion you make, then by them copying files into their project they have changed the licence of a file (it now inherits whatever their project uses). No, the only one who can actually change the license of a file is the rights holder, so the person who copied the code while ignoring the license misrepresents matters but does not change anything about how the work is licencsed.
swartkrans 12y ago
> What causes people to need to sprinkle license boilerplate everywhere, including in files which are otherwise completely empty The Apache 2 license library has language that indicates the use is to put bits of the license in every file. That's why. It's easy enough to maintain a license at the top of files with an IDE like IntelliJ
simonmales 12y ago
It is an eye sore for me as well. The CakePHP project has done away with yearly update by replacing the year(s) with '(c)'. https://github.com/cakephp/cakephp/commit/7b860debe4731a9cbc3abcdeacb7f1efd5be4a7c https://github.com/cakephp/cakephp/commit/7b860debe4731a9cbc... I remember watching a Stephen Fry interview who mentioned that placing the Copyright symbol once on your piece of work is sufficient to claim Copyright. But is placing the symbol once on a book, the same as placing a Copyright/License block once in a project directory?
- iherbig 12y ago
  As a matter of fact, you do not need to even declare copyright anywhere in the text to claim copyright (at least in the US). Copyright exists from the moment of the work's creation. [1] And placing a copyright notice does not afford you any other benefits without registration anyway. Once you've registered with the US Copyright Office, you may place a copyright notice if you want, but your work is still protected even if you don't. [2] [1] http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register [2] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#401 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap4.html#401
  - diydsp 12y ago
    I'm dating a lawyer. According to them, what you've written is true, however, speaking practically, there is a significant advantage to be gained from presenting evidence. If two parties show up to a dispute with identical source code, the one that has a copyright in it has an advantage. Sure, it's easily faked, and that could be argued, however, it would be trying to argue away evidence that exists which is much more difficult than arguing in favor of something that does exist. So if you want to lock in a victory and reduce court time, use copyright notices (and other legal notices like trespassing signs, etc.) liberally.
icebraining 12y ago
It just seems to defy reason that we must make humans increment a number Ah, but why do you assume a human did that? Writing a script to update the year in all files doesn't take more than a few minutes to write. Chances are he simply ran "update_license_year" and committed. Likewise for having a license on every single file: it may simply be a git hook that preprends it to every file with a certain extension.
yaeger 12y ago
>Is this really the best we can do Perhaps in places like github. With central versioning systems where the server is under our control we simply run daemons that check the copyright. Each user can define how it should work for them. If copyright is not okay the user can either a) have the submit fail so he is notified that it needs fixing or b) let it be fixed automatically by the daemon. This fixing also includes adding a copyright notice to new files that didn't have any. Nicely defined depending on the file type. The implementation was a one time effort which now saves us from doing exactly what they are doing now. Manually going through thousands of files to fix a copyright.

fletchowns 12y ago

Where's the Vagrantfile?

bdcravens 12y ago
On your computer until you git push and submit your pull request? :-)
frdmn 12y ago
https://github.com/ajacksified/reddit-vagrant https://github.com/ajacksified/reddit-vagrant

EGreg 12y ago

Wow I am impressed that a commercial social networking software company open sources their entire codebase.

lclarkmichalek 12y ago
They don't open source 100%; the anti spam and vote obfucation stuff isn't there
- jsmthrowaway 12y ago
  Recent changes nearly dropped the obfuscation stuff in its entirety, anyway.
- im_dario 12y ago
  What else is missing? It should be stated in the README.
rbreve 12y ago
This is not new, reddit has been open sourced since 2008 http://www.redditblog.com/2008/06/reddit-goes-open-source.html http://www.redditblog.com/2008/06/reddit-goes-open-source.ht...
eloisant 12y ago
To be honest their codesource isn't probably worth much, it's their userbase and traffic that makes up all of their value.

iowai 12y ago

I once was an intern in a company that wanted to rewrite the whole Reddit code in .net. The founder was a charming person and managed to raise a huge pile of money. "We can redo this with current technology and elegant design! We will run circles around Reddit!". We had a great time. Free snacks, lot's of parties, luxurious office furniture, skateboarding in the hall... In the end, the company ran out of money before the product reached a useful state. Good times. It has been some time since then and I have a "normal" job now. Last thing I heard about the founder is that he started a new vc backed company destined to run circles around something.

cpach 12y ago
That’s odd. As if the programming language itself is what makes Reddit what it is :)
- weego 12y ago
  Unfortunately from my experience, people thinking that background technology choices can give them a consumer advantage is not that uncommon.
  - kysol 12y ago
    That or more hardware to overcome bottlenecks caused by bad code. "It's running slow, we need more memory!". After some investigation, really... you've got 8 joins without using keys, and you're getting paid more than us how?
  - mdonohue 12y ago
    FYI, that includes pg's thinking on the use of lisp for viaweb http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >FYI, that includes pg's thinking on the use of lisp for viaweb Yeah, I for one think this was equally flawed. People have made succesful and quickly iteratable web services/apps in all kinds of languages, including Perl and PHP. Plus, one single data source like pg had is never that accurate, plus the fact he and Martin were already Lisp guru s helped them in their use of it.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nttdocomo 12y ago

Dear lord that JavaScript is painful to read. I want to submit a pull request and fix all their semicolons.

kysol 12y ago
Not for/against the code formatting, just giving you a target (just hope you know who you're going after) :D https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/8e2737dab409c46d688cf5065a89c6dd0df44dde https://github.com/reddit/reddit/commit/8e2737dab409c46d688c...
madlee 12y ago
FWIW, there _is_ a proper styleguide now, it just hasn't been retroactively applied to older js. https://github.com/reddit/styleguide/tree/master/javascript https://github.com/reddit/styleguide/tree/master/javascript
- nttdocomo 12y ago
  Nice, looks like they went with a slightly modified version of airbnb's js styleguide. That's what we use at work.

fit2rule 12y ago

Isn't reddit already a re-write of slashdot and digg and so on .. and on it goes? Me, I see no difference between reddit now, and USENET of the 80's/90's. Except that reddit isn't distributed, by nature, but rather .. empirical .. I still use USENET. Its a quite place now the kids have all grown up and left the basements...

Grue3 12y ago

Would've been more interesting if they released the original, Common Lisp code.