Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.lang.c > #391470
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? |
| Date | 2025-03-21 02:41 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <8634f6n2k8.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <vpr019$3b2ld$1@dont-email.me> <20250228144442.00002037@yahoo.com> <868qpnw2sn.fsf@linuxsc.com> <gRjxP.122767$FVcd.55407@fx10.iad> <8734ftn1fb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: > IBM developed 80-column cards, with the same overall size, in > the late 1920s. Apparently 80 just happened to be the number > of rectangular holes that could reasonably be accommodated > [...] We don't know that. The same size might have accommodated 85 columns, but was revised down to 80 for other reasons. Or the same size might have accommodated only 77 columns, but it was discovered that 80 columns could work if a different card material was used. The form factor was one constraint, but not the only constraint, and not the only consideration. > Source: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card> > > I'll just note that the fact that 80 is an arbitrary number, > based on technologies we no longer use, [...] The choice of using 80 columns was constrained by what technology was available at the time, but it's wrong to describe the value as arbitrary. We know that a choice was made between a much lower number (between 40 and 50 IIRC) and the higher number 80. That decision already means the value used was not arbitrary. Also we don't know what other factors might have gone into the decision; it's possible that IBM settled on 80 only after considering what line lengths needed to be supported. We don't know what would have happened if, for example, it had been discovered that using rectangular holes would allow up to only 60 columns, perhaps encouraging the introduction of newer equipment. We also don't know if someone had looked at how many characters were needed in typical printed material, and pushed the rectangular hole technology only as far as was needed to support that. It seems reasonable to expect that IBM would have considered such issues, even in the 1920s, and not just ignore them.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-21 02:41 -0700
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-21 14:06 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-21 14:08 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-22 06:49 -0700
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-22 14:32 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-22 12:45 -0700
Re: 80 char lines and holerith cards [Was:Which code style do you prefer the most?] Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> - 2025-04-01 05:46 +0200
Re: 80 char lines and holerith cards [Was:Which code style do you prefer the most?] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-01 09:46 +0200
Re: 80 char lines and holerith cards [Was:Which code style do you prefer the most?] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-01 13:52 +0000
Re: 80 char lines and holerith cards [Was:Which code style do you prefer the most?] Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-01 19:11 +0200
Re: 80 char lines and holerith cards [Was:Which code style do you prefer the most?] scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-04-01 17:20 +0000
csiph-web