From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4345 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2021 18:33:59 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Mar 2021 18:33:59 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 47F469CA88; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 04:33:57 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97A4F9CA68; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 04:33:42 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Tx7sDtrO"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 440459CA68; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 04:33:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-yb1-f178.google.com (mail-yb1-f178.google.com [209.85.219.178]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E99A09CA67 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 04:33:36 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-yb1-f178.google.com with SMTP id u3so29552496ybk.6 for ; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 10:33:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sX1KyTtG0zL+U2QqejPEFcs6LBYqDykk0GUdCBgYGcE=; b=Tx7sDtrOr6XplfQQXxoDoS2hs3NK5GObH9vNE2IW9GJA1zzIVycj3K8Yf6IK7uVEcU pirP2Mw3ETEMIJuaEsgVBii5S53lSJAGFYL2Qm2F6foqcbSR3oF7XCIf1b5f407oQR08 jLcdQ0dBMvW7sN8hSWkMMjeiy5CdAFnJ5q2GDbCQhfr0f+VAb00CM849vbZhz+yQQKz9 +QmvfME5Q6121n7KU3bQRe0VD+lzqQe/gNSp+s2PNRUuZLahWChAGx5XlVQYoRinD9oP 9wT7E7eMKLLX4mIoY++DTASwE3d/RKToGHTwHIVPRIcBmPC4qq0WPDxvFc4BWekD4gbu 8MgA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sX1KyTtG0zL+U2QqejPEFcs6LBYqDykk0GUdCBgYGcE=; b=Kp91xQiqWVniUiMyIbqlZPmao7DbiqUBRA9MSXiH21p0Mi24B0YdGens58dwzycD45 su9MoNSkesOYs1Rp0OIPiEerlGwri+aOQtA2vk5SNcAVU4OZIKuOwYzVURownS3q66pQ ZFbWCew50xGCIcXWrcIq+Jts//L+o+12YRHnuDtyOwWiQYaBnJp7JhNoeahtWis+4KhK uS+JQMJyrNSYITqmJ5otppBptDLen9GOIaGBScx+NFXvmvjuXnABPiY5aVPiTWzZLnuD ZkAj8Hq+wkqFmPRjxT6+ahVBc37fuJD+rA+6DwrPGORyLUhywyvr24NQ9Rjx2u1i1NeH 1xBw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531h7LQu6fY6aNot9wWr2Erel4AHDnU6sMW9NDMIZ7uYWUJRrO6C 2eVeKq7XLQaS+cttLuAuHJSzqeiQVlKmU6ZETw0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyOFU5MiXKf6U+024Fz+MvkmXemYMTpI5Vlh1yhrGWQLY45QuhcJXzaY+TMqoGXSLMQVO4Rc8zSUx1ZQNS/6cA= X-Received: by 2002:a25:6a0b:: with SMTP id f11mr8314738ybc.469.1614882816113; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 10:33:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: "John P. Linderman" Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 13:33:25 -0500 Message-ID: To: Will Senn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009bbe1e05bcba3488" Subject: Re: [TUHS] tabs vs spaces - entab, detab X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000009bbe1e05bcba3488 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" In my first days as a UNIX user (mid 70's), operating at 110 baud, mechanical tabs were much faster than multiple spaces. And with now-laughably small disks, saving space in files was a consideration, too. Neither should matter now, but early training can be difficult to overcome. I find it easier to read code when statements aren't split across multiple lines (and therefore sometimes across pages). So I'm now inclined to favor smaller tab-stops. On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:53 AM Will Senn wrote: > OK. So, I've been trying to decide (for the last time, I swear) whether to > use tabs or spaces in my code... I did a quick pulse-check on the state of > argument and it appears to be alive and well in 2021. My question for y'all > is, was there a preference in the very early days or not? I saw an article > talking about the 20 year feud, but that's not my recollection. In 1994, > nobody agreed on this, but I'm sure it predates my entree into the field. > I'm thinking the history of entab and detab are somehow related, but I've > been wrong on these sorts of thoughts before. What say you? > > Will > --0000000000009bbe1e05bcba3488 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In = my first days as a UNIX user (mid 70's), operating at 110 baud, mechani= cal tabs were much faster than multiple spaces. And with now-laughably smal= l disks, saving space in files was a consideration, too. Neither should mat= ter now, but early training can be difficult to overcome.

I find it easier to read code when state= ments aren't split across multiple=C2=A0lines (and therefore sometimes = across pages). So I'm now inclined to favor smaller tab-stops.

On = Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 11:53 AM Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
OK. So, I've been tryin= g to decide (for the last time, I swear) whether to use tabs or spaces in my code... I did a quick pulse-check on the state of argument and it appears to be alive and well in 2021. My question for y'all is, was there a preference in the very early days or not? I saw an article talking about the 20 year feud, but that's not my recollection. In 1994, nobody agreed on this, but I'm sure it predates my entree into the field. I'm thinking the history of entab and detab are somehow related, but I've been wrong on these sorts of thoughts before. What say you?

Will
--0000000000009bbe1e05bcba3488--