From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lm@mcvoy.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 13:24:24 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] 80 columns ... In-Reply-To: References: <20171108210216.GB15276@mcvoy.com> Message-ID: <20171108212424.GA15911@mcvoy.com> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 04:19:49PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 08:52:03PM +0000, ron minnich wrote: > >> So, 80 column folks, would you find this > >> a(b, > >> c, > >> d) > >> > >> more readable than > >> a(b,c,d) > > > > yeah, I do. I work on thinkpad x220 sized machines which are just big enough > > for two 80 column windows with a little left over. When I'm checking in code, > > reviewing code, debugging code, I frequently want to see two versions of the > > same file side by side. If you code wider than 80 columns it greatly reduces > > the speed at which you can figure out what happened. > > The thing that sort of vexes me about these arguments is that the > number 80 is so arbitrary. Not really. Programmers need windows side by side. Lots and lots of bit mapped displays can handle 2 80 column windows at a reasonable font size. And I made the point about side by side diff tools. And I made the point about being able to read down the center and get the rest through peripheral vision. Would I like wider? Not really, at this point the vast majority of the code I look at, the man pages and other docs I look, they all fit in 80 columns. Sure, you could pick something else but you are just fighting reality. It's like video on phones. We still call it taping. Probably still will in a 100 years. Where's the tape? In history.