8 Nov
2017
8 Nov
'17
10:06 p.m.
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:52:03 +0000 ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
ron minnich writes:
So, 80 column folks, would you find this
a(b,
c,
d)
more readable than
a(b,c,d)
That's still only 7 chars!
(this is a real example, with slightly shortened
names)
It is this spellingThingsOutInExcruciatingDetail that I find
hard to read. Whether you use 80 columns or 800. Why not
think a bit harder and come up with shorter name? Fix that
and you don't need wide columns.
Not to mention longer words are easier to misspell (which then
brings in an all singling all dancing IDE...)
would you have code review software that automatically
bounces out lines
that are 82 columns wide? How far does this go?
I do recall 80 column monitors, but I started on 132 column decwriter IIs
and hence have never had sympathy for 80 columns. It's weird that so many
punched-card standards are required in our code bases now (see: Linux).
Shorter lines are just faster to read. Which is why (printed)
newspapers have multiple columns.
moving away from serious ... (look for
Presottos' I feel so liberated ...)
http://comp.os.plan9.narkive.com/4W8iThHW/9fans-acme-fonts
Funny. To adjust column width in acme I use monospace font
and a file called "ruler" (reproduced below):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
| | | | | | | | |