| 1 |
On 07/06/15 18:54, Allan Wegan wrote: |
| 2 |
>> [1] Of course, 320x108 chars /is/ with a 42-inch TV as a monitor, but |
| 3 |
>> it's not exactly tiny print, either. I sit farther away from it than |
| 4 |
>> many people sit from their monitor. But even half of that is 160 |
| 5 |
>> chars width, which is what I used to use on my 21-inch. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Now 160 sounds like two perfectly legible terminals side by side with 80 |
| 8 |
> chars each. ;) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
I tend to like agreeing with others ;) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I have 2 30" monitors running KDE and I often run Konsole in a window |
| 15 |
1280 in width but this is really to enable me to easily split tmux panes |
| 16 |
(terminal on left, log on right). As such 80 (79 in PEP8 in Python) |
| 17 |
characters per line makes it much easier than relying upon (usually |
| 18 |
horrible) word wrapping. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
120 is a thing I have seen but I think anything above that is pushing it |
| 21 |
in terms of readable. Obviously there are times when you break these |
| 22 |
rules, but most of time you can find a way not to that does not change |
| 23 |
your code or make it less optimal (for example, splitting by assigning a |
| 24 |
new variable just to break lines up, which could (prior to an |
| 25 |
optimisation stage) introduce a few opcodes that were not there before). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Andrew |
Archives