| 1 |
On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 04:40:47 +0000 (UTC) Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Andrew Savchenko posted on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 20:36:13 +0300 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:35:41 +0600 Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> > * linewidth >> 80 (why do we have this short limit still in 2015) |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> Actually, I dislike that too, but the reason is simple: some people |
| 8 |
> >> still using text-mode terminals. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> // It would be nice to finally fix that, but let's be realistic: it |
| 11 |
> >> looks like it wouldn't be finished in the near 10 years :-/ |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > It will never be finished, because console-based workflow is the most |
| 14 |
> > efficient way to work for many people, especially for advanced |
| 15 |
> > users/devs. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Well, yes, but vgacon is rather dated, now. More folks are using high |
| 18 |
> resolution framebuffer console mode all the time, and with monitors |
| 19 |
> standardizing on 1920x1080 due to HDTV, well... my console mode is 320 |
| 20 |
> columns x 108 lines, now, and 80 chars... is just scrunched up on the |
| 21 |
> left quarter of the screen![1] |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Of course there's split-screen too, tho I think many are like me and |
| 24 |
> simply startx and run terminal windows if they want split-screen, so |
| 25 |
> haven't bothered configuring it at the frame-buffer console, but again, |
| 26 |
> even that's 160 width, over 100 width if 3-way-vert-split, and still 80 |
| 27 |
> width at 4-way-vert-split, which is getting a bit ridiculous. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> So console-based workflow isn't so much of an excuse for 80-char lines, |
| 30 |
> these days. Of course lines can be /too/ long. There's a reason |
| 31 |
> newspapers and the like use multi-column printing, after all. But 120 |
| 32 |
> char isn't too bad, and I expect most would find at least 100 char an |
| 33 |
> improvement over 80, which really begins to feel like the old 40-char |
| 34 |
> widths at some point. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
You missed my point completely. 80 chars limit comes not from the |
| 37 |
console width, but from the text readability[1]. It doesn't matter |
| 38 |
how wide one's physical monitor is. Text of 300 characters width |
| 39 |
will be barely readable. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Of course if a code have large left indents for inner blocks, such |
| 42 |
code may exceed 80-chars barrier, but without left whitespace it |
| 43 |
should be within limits. Of course there are various exceptions like |
| 44 |
comments and so on. But as a rule of thumb too wide lines are not |
| 45 |
readable because eyes shift during line read is way too large. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
60-80 chars limit comes from the science, not from the console |
| 48 |
width. Actually I suspect that console width was selected that way |
| 49 |
due to readability issues. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
[1] http://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Best regards, |
| 54 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives