I have been reading and writing both GLSL and CG for the past few years, and have noticed a trend. In programming, we are generally advised to be as concise as possible with variable names, but I see this rule to be broken almost every time I look at shaders.

Here is a random example I grabbed off of Shadertoy:

vec3 tex_wmcs(vec2 p)
{
    float s=mix(0.2,1.2,sqrt(smoothNoise2(p*3.0)));
    vec3 col=mix(vec3(0.15,0.2,0.2)*0.4,vec3(0.2,0.15,0.11)*0.7*s,sqrt(max(0.0,sm...
    vec2 p2=p*vec2(4.0,10.0)+vec2(smoothNoise2(p*24.0),smoothNoise2...
    p2.x+=floor(p2.y)*0.5;
    float bh=pow(0.5+0.5*cos(floor(p2.y)*14.0)*cos(floor(p2.x)*1.0),2.0);
    float brick=brickt(p2);
    vec3 bn=normalize(vec3(brickt(p2+vec2(1e-3,0.0))-brick,b...
    ...
}

Why do so many graphics programmers like to minify their code to the point that it is no longer comprehensible by someone else at first glance? I have not worked in a production environment so I can't say that this is how every graphics programmer codes, but it is an observation.

Is there a downside to spelling out brickNormal instead of lazily leaving it as bn? And brickt? Brick tangent? Brick texture?

Are there any practical or technical reasons today as for why this is done?

I have been reading and writing both GLSL and CG for the past few years, and have noticed a trend. In programming, we are generally advised to be as meaningful and concise as possible with variable names, but I see this suggestion being ignored almost every time I look at shaders.

Here is a random example I grabbed off of Shadertoy:

vec3 tex_wmcs(vec2 p)
{
    float s=mix(0.2,1.2,sqrt(smoothNoise2(p*3.0)));
    vec3 col=mix(vec3(0.15,0.2,0.2)*0.4,vec3(0.2,0.15,0.11)*0.7*s,sqrt(max(0.0,sm...
    vec2 p2=p*vec2(4.0,10.0)+vec2(smoothNoise2(p*24.0),smoothNoise2...
    p2.x+=floor(p2.y)*0.5;
    float bh=pow(0.5+0.5*cos(floor(p2.y)*14.0)*cos(floor(p2.x)*1.0),2.0);
    float brick=brickt(p2);
    vec3 bn=normalize(vec3(brickt(p2+vec2(1e-3,0.0))-brick,b...
    ...
}

Is there a practical reason so many graphics programmers minify their code to such a point?

Is there a technical downside to spelling out brickNormal instead of leaving it as bn, or using brick_tangent or brickTexture instead of brickt?

I have been reading and writing both GLSL and CG for the past few years, and have noticed a trend. In programming, we are generally advised to be as concise as possible with variable names, but I see this rule to be broken almost every time I look at shaders.

Here is a random example I grabbed off of Shadertoy:

vec3 tex_wmcs(vec2 p)
{
    float s=mix(0.2,1.2,sqrt(smoothNoise2(p*3.0)));
    vec3 col=mix(vec3(0.15,0.2,0.2)*0.4,vec3(0.2,0.15,0.11)*0.7*s,sqrt(max(0.0,sm...
    vec2 p2=p*vec2(4.0,10.0)+vec2(smoothNoise2(p*24.0),smoothNoise2...
    p2.x+=floor(p2.y)*0.5;
    float bh=pow(0.5+0.5*cos(floor(p2.y)*14.0)*cos(floor(p2.x)*1.0),2.0);
    float brick=brickt(p2);
    vec3 bn=normalize(vec3(brickt(p2+vec2(1e-3,0.0))-brick,b...
    ...
}

Why do so many graphics programmers like to minify their code to the point that it is no longer comprehensible by someone else at first glance? I have not worked in a production environment so I can't say that this is how every graphics programmer codes, but it is an observation.

Is there a downside to spelling out brickNormal instead of lazily leaving it as bn? And brickt? Brick tangent? Brick texture?

Are there any good reasons (or excuses) for leaving it that way? Is this just a habit that some programmer has due to the lack of the abundance of storage back in the days? Is this acceptable in a modern, production setting?

I have been reading and writing both GLSL and CG for the past few years, and have noticed a trend. In programming, we are generally advised to be as concise as possible with variable names, but I see this rule to be broken almost every time I look at shaders.

Here is a random example I grabbed off of Shadertoy:

vec3 tex_wmcs(vec2 p)
{
    float s=mix(0.2,1.2,sqrt(smoothNoise2(p*3.0)));
    vec3 col=mix(vec3(0.15,0.2,0.2)*0.4,vec3(0.2,0.15,0.11)*0.7*s,sqrt(max(0.0,sm...
    vec2 p2=p*vec2(4.0,10.0)+vec2(smoothNoise2(p*24.0),smoothNoise2...
    p2.x+=floor(p2.y)*0.5;
    float bh=pow(0.5+0.5*cos(floor(p2.y)*14.0)*cos(floor(p2.x)*1.0),2.0);
    float brick=brickt(p2);
    vec3 bn=normalize(vec3(brickt(p2+vec2(1e-3,0.0))-brick,b...
    ...
}

Why do so many graphics programmers like to minify their code to the point that it is no longer comprehensible by someone else at first glance? I have not worked in a production environment so I can't say that this is how every graphics programmer codes, but it is an observation.

Is there a downside to spelling out brickNormal instead of lazily leaving it as bn? And brickt? Brick tangent? Brick texture?

Are there any practical or technical reasons today as for why this is done?