11 Nov
2017
11 Nov
'17
4:59 a.m.
Toby Thain writes:
On 2017-11-10 3:43 PM, Jon Steinhart wrote:
I'm not unfamiliar with the studies. Most are focus on speed of reading
which is not necessarily the most important thing in code. Some studies
have found that things that are easier to read are read less accurately
which might be OK when reading a novel but is not necessarily optimal for
code.
Me, I try not to be dogmatic or to read what I want into studies. Well
written long lines trump cryptic short lines for me. Your mileage may
vary.
Jon
Toby Thain writes:
It's _reading_. Code doesn't magically escape typographic factors. The
human visual/processing system is the constraint, it does not care
whether you're reading paper or the more hostile LCD - and it has not
changed materially in the millennia we've been doing writing (and
certainly not the 500 years we've been doing books). There is also a
body of modern research on this. Even research specifically focused on
code, I believe. 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.