From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jon@fourwinds.com (Jon Steinhart) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 12:43:36 -0800 Subject: [TUHS] 80 columns ... In-Reply-To: <47fee362-0fde-69ff-7794-a88cf3069030@telegraphics.com.au> References: <7wpo8rud7y.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <60C45CFF-0B5C-4DAB-8936-BA27ECFFA487@gmail.com> <025501d3598f$008f19d0$01ad4d70$@ronnatalie.com> <201711101905.vAAJ5SpV031420@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <47fee362-0fde-69ff-7794-a88cf3069030@telegraphics.com.au> Message-ID: <201711102043.vAAKhaYB020128@darkstar.fourwinds.com> Toby Thain writes: > Just don't move on without some limit. There are real > cognitive/typographic reasons why excessively long lines hurt > comprehension. This is why both 500 year old books and 5 month old books > have narrow measures. > > 80 might be too narrow for most, but at some point beyond 132 is "too > far". :) Well, I would claim that books have technological limitations that are different than computer monitors. It's a matter of doing what's appropriate instead of taking a dogmatic approach. I will point out that while it's sometimes a pain, the reader/writer ratio is a major driving force. I save on typing and use very terse code when writing stuff for myself. But, when writing stuff where there are many readers I feel that it's my job to put in the extra work to make it more accessible to the reader, partly because I don't want the readers bugging me. Jon