Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #390416 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-02-25 21:15 +0600 |
| Last post | 2025-03-18 13:59 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 295 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-25 21:15 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2025-02-25 15:23 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-25 21:34 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-25 16:17 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-25 22:50 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-25 22:51 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-25 17:28 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-25 22:52 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-25 20:35 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-25 23:02 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-26 09:41 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-26 13:25 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-26 17:43 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-26 13:39 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 01:03 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 05:58 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 22:11 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-26 15:37 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) - 2025-02-26 14:39 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-26 17:32 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-26 16:47 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-26 20:45 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-09 12:18 -0700
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-09 22:30 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-10 13:21 -0700
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-26 18:13 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-26 20:56 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 06:57 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-27 16:47 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-02-28 00:29 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-28 14:44 +0200
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:14 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-02 13:17 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-03 14:13 +0200
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 12:29 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-03 13:33 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-03 13:57 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 03:16 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-03 10:49 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-03 15:25 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-03 10:34 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-03 15:23 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 03:17 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-04 06:12 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 05:39 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-04 03:42 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-04 15:55 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 20:49 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-04 22:15 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 05:09 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-05 04:24 +0000
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
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-28 10:00 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-28 12:54 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-02-28 12:21 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-28 16:44 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:10 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-02-28 23:32 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-02-28 23:49 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 16:15 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-01 01:02 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-01 17:30 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 02:55 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-01 07:07 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 22:04 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-27 21:10 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 01:04 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 07:06 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 06:17 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 09:38 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 09:15 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-28 08:50 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-02-28 08:55 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-28 10:21 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-02-28 10:19 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-28 14:26 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-02-28 14:22 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-28 16:34 +0200
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:09 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-28 21:55 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 10:47 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-02-28 18:53 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:08 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-01 17:32 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-01 21:32 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 22:20 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-01 23:43 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 17:24 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 02:42 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-01 20:46 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-01 21:29 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-02 06:46 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-02 06:48 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-02 11:31 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 12:17 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 22:13 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-02 12:52 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-02 13:42 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-02 19:04 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-02 16:32 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-02 17:50 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-02 18:28 +0000
[OT] Pascal identifiers [digression] (was Re: Which code style do you prefer the most?) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-02 23:00 +0100
Re: [OT] Pascal identifiers [digression] (was Re: Which code style do you prefer the most?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-02 14:49 -0800
Re: [OT] Pascal identifiers [digression] (was Re: Which code style do you prefer the most?) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 02:16 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-02 22:07 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-03-01 21:41 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-02 05:52 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-02 14:21 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-03 17:03 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-25 22:59 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-25 15:43 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? John McCue <jmccue@reddwf.jmcunx.com> - 2025-02-25 18:36 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-26 00:39 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-02-25 18:51 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-25 19:33 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-02-25 20:40 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-25 21:09 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-25 23:10 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? G <g@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-02-26 09:21 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-26 13:58 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-26 17:53 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-26 14:06 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-26 15:58 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-26 16:26 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-26 17:47 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? John McCue <jmccue@whitedwf.jmcunx.com> - 2025-02-26 19:32 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-26 19:50 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 01:22 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 07:34 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 08:06 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 09:47 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 09:16 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-26 21:09 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 07:59 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-26 21:01 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-26 22:13 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-02 00:49 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-26 17:32 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-26 13:31 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 01:10 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 19:05 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-27 17:23 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 23:17 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-02 06:00 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-02 16:20 +0200
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-02 15:53 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-02-25 20:21 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-26 17:51 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-02-26 17:59 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-26 18:59 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 08:14 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-02 00:21 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-02 13:21 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 19:02 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-28 10:32 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-28 18:54 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 01:08 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 18:59 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-02 06:22 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2025-02-25 22:46 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-26 17:54 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-25 22:47 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-25 22:48 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-26 17:59 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-26 14:26 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-26 21:44 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-02-26 23:17 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 18:56 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-02-27 14:13 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 21:12 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-27 17:26 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 23:17 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-28 02:40 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-02-28 04:29 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-28 10:21 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-28 17:30 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-02-28 18:39 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-28 15:30 +0200
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-28 18:59 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-02-27 13:24 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-28 10:22 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-02-28 10:24 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-28 13:03 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-02 09:35 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-28 14:19 +0200
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-01 21:30 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-02 09:29 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-03 02:17 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-03 02:46 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-03 03:28 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-11 22:11 -0700
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-12 06:52 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-12 11:12 +0200
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-12 09:23 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-13 00:06 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-15 09:26 -0700
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-15 18:23 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:15 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-02-28 22:15 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 22:38 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-02-28 23:21 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 02:56 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-01 06:17 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 20:25 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-01 21:03 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-01 22:21 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-27 14:16 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2025-02-27 14:21 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 21:13 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-27 17:33 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-02-27 17:27 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-27 21:14 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 23:24 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-28 22:12 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-28 21:25 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-02-27 14:18 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Ar Rakin <rakinar2@onesoftnet.eu.org> - 2025-02-27 21:11 +0600
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-01 21:56 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-02-27 08:45 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-27 08:08 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-02 04:01 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-03-04 17:56 +0300
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 15:18 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-04 16:01 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 18:14 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-04 21:49 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 22:17 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-04 22:26 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-04 22:40 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 23:45 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 05:46 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-03-05 07:02 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 09:35 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-05 08:39 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 09:58 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-05 19:12 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 21:53 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 02:34 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-03-05 15:22 +0300
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-05 14:44 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-05 14:20 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-03-05 18:30 +0300
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-05 16:40 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 18:09 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-05 17:32 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-05 17:51 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 19:50 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2025-03-05 19:09 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-05 19:18 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-05 20:07 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 21:46 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-05 14:58 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-06 10:35 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-06 10:29 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-06 14:49 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-03-06 17:52 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-03-06 18:05 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-06 21:14 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-07 15:37 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-07 12:17 -0800
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-08 16:47 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-03-12 22:20 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-03-12 15:23 -0700
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-13 00:12 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-13 09:30 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-13 09:44 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-13 16:19 +0200
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-13 16:20 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-03-06 20:36 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? G <g@nowhere.invalid> - 2025-03-07 09:28 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-07 21:16 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-06 20:49 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-05 22:02 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2025-03-05 23:46 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-06 00:46 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-06 10:53 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-03-06 14:48 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-03-06 21:18 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-07 08:10 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-03-04 23:36 +0000
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-03-09 11:41 -0700
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-03-05 05:21 +0100
Re: Which code style do you prefer the most? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-03-18 13:59 +0100
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uAHvP.1352960$if26.668481@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #390468 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >On 26/02/2025 15:39, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> Just do your best to keep it neat and under 80 columns. >> > >Neat, yes. 80 columns, no - unless you are living in the previous century. > >Lines that are too long are hard to read, but the idea that 80 columns >is a good number or should be a hard limit is /long/ outdated. About >100 - 120 columns is a better fit for a lot of code, letting you use >sensible identifiers without excessively splitting logical lines into >multiple physical lines. I tend to prefer the 80 column constraint. I use vim with both horizontal and vertical splits to work on a codebase with several hundred source files; 80-column lines are much easier to read in that environment, where each split may only be 80 columns wide with two or three vertical splits available on a wide (16x9) screen. Makes it easly to move between files/splits using the keyboard, especially useful over ssh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 20:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vpnr0n$2mq8h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390469 |
On 26/02/2025 17:47, Scott Lurndal wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 26/02/2025 15:39, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >>> Just do your best to keep it neat and under 80 columns. >>> >> >> Neat, yes. 80 columns, no - unless you are living in the previous century. >> >> Lines that are too long are hard to read, but the idea that 80 columns >> is a good number or should be a hard limit is /long/ outdated. About >> 100 - 120 columns is a better fit for a lot of code, letting you use >> sensible identifiers without excessively splitting logical lines into >> multiple physical lines. > > I tend to prefer the 80 column constraint. I use vim with > both horizontal and vertical splits to work on a codebase with > several hundred source files; 80-column lines are much easier > to read in that environment, where each split may only be 80 columns wide > with two or three vertical splits available on a wide (16x9) screen. > > Makes it easly to move between files/splits using the keyboard, especially > useful over ssh. I also work with multiple files on-screen at the same time, split in various ways. I also work with ssh and remote files, and use command-line editors on occasion. 80 columns is /not/ a magic number that works well in such situations. Sometimes I want more files on-screen at a time, in which case 80 columns is perhaps too wide. Usually, it is a little too narrow - you end up splitting lines artificially in a way that reduces legibility. If you find that 80 columns works well for you, fine - use 80 columns. I've nothing against rules or styles based on what works for any given person, or even if it's just personal preference. But I don't think much of a rule that exists primarily because of hardware limitations 40 years ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8634fmui5s.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #390469 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 26/02/2025 15:39, Bradley K. Sherman wrote: >> >>> Just do your best to keep it neat and under 80 columns. >> >> Neat, yes. 80 columns, no - unless you are living in the previous >> century. >> >> Lines that are too long are hard to read, but the idea that 80 >> columns is a good number or should be a hard limit is /long/ >> outdated. [...] These statements exemplify the sort of tripe offered by people who have strong opinions but no facts. Proof by innuendo. > I tend to prefer the 80 column constraint. I use vim with both > horizontal and vertical splits to work on a codebase with several > hundred source files; 80-column lines are much easier to read in > that environment, where each split may only be 80 columns wide > with two or three vertical splits available on a wide (16x9) > screen. > > Makes it easly to move between files/splits using the keyboard, > especially useful over ssh. I often read code on 8.5 by 11 paper. I find using that medium gives me a wider focus, and lets me understand how code fits together on a large scale, better than looking at code on a display, even a very large one. Having more than 80 columns per line when using a paper medium makes the characters smaller, and IME increases the amount of effort and energy needed when reading, which consequently limits the amount of time I can spend reviewing and understanding code. There are other reasons to want to limit line lengths to something near 80 columns, but the effect of output on standard paper media is one of the most compelling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-09 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vql18p$uc35$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390924 |
On 09.03.2025 20:18, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > I often read code on 8.5 by 11 paper. I find using that medium > gives me a wider focus, and lets me understand how code fits > together on a large scale, better than looking at code on a > display, even a very large one. Oh, I wouldn't have expected that there's something here where I can agree with you. Or only disagree in that I'd prefer A4 format (instead of US Letter). Though I wouldn't expect that many folks still prefer (for a better overview) paper to displays. More so if we consider that common (e.g. 24") screens have an area that even exceeds two A4 papers put side by side horizontally. Another thing is that folks (me included) not only read source code but also search and navigate source code. So unless some 'paper-grep' gets developed - a feature I've been seeking since decades! - paper is not exactly good as reason for a 80 columns discussion (i.e. beyond the upthread already mentioned general better readability property of smaller text widths in printed media). Paper of course has yet some other advantages; for me, I inspect or study the papers at the sunny balcony, with my head comfortably lowered, and I don't carry 24" displays around and don't want to have lighting issues (with reflections and brightness). And with two hands you can hold two papers one below the other too look over 120-130 lines of code at once (assuming separate papers and not continuous listing paper that allows even more). ;-) > Having more than 80 columns per > line when using a paper medium makes the characters smaller, and > IME increases the amount of effort and energy needed when reading, > which consequently limits the amount of time I can spend reviewing > and understanding code. It depends. In cases where you're focusing on structure than on details of content smaller fonts are advantageous. In programming there's a mixture of looking at contents and structure[*]. Here the advantage of screens with a scalable font size beats paper; you can adjust windows and fonts to fit actual necessities. YMMV. (And there's yet more useful functions available, like folding.) [*] That's a difference to left-aligned, blocked prose text, BTW. > There are other reasons to want to limit > line lengths to something near 80 columns, but the effect of output > on standard paper media is one of the most compelling. Back in the days when paper was more commonly used I often printed source code with a2ps in its default mode, which was 2 print pages side by side on a landscape A4 paper (with a scaling equivalent of ~71%); for 80-column programs that was fine - more columns would result in extremely annoying line wrapping, which is actually the primary reason for me to typically not use lines larger than these 80 columns (that a lot of devices, tools, programs, and standards rely on). That equally holds for displays and for output on paper! One aspect when working together with others on the same source is important to be aware of; cleanly formatted 80-columns source code can be trivially read by "anyone", but larger lines that wrap on smaller devices (or on paper, if you like) is an unnecessary pain for others; I would even call it anti-social. :-) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-10 13:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86pliotz5o.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #390925 |
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes: > On 09.03.2025 20:18, Tim Rentsch wrote: > >> I often read code on 8.5 by 11 paper. I find using that medium >> gives me a wider focus, and lets me understand how code fits >> together on a large scale, better than looking at code on a >> display, even a very large one. > > Oh, I wouldn't have expected that there's something here where I > can agree with you. Or only disagree in that I'd prefer A4 format > (instead of US Letter). A4 format is narrower than US letter, which strengthens the argument for limiting to (around) 80 columns. > Though I wouldn't expect that many folks > still prefer (for a better overview) paper to displays. More so > if we consider that common (e.g. 24") screens have an area that > even exceeds two A4 papers put side by side horizontally. > [other comparisons] I don't think of paper as a replacement for an interactive display. It offers advantages along some axes, disadvantages along others. I think it's a mistake to exclude either one. >> Having more than 80 columns per >> line when using a paper medium makes the characters smaller, and >> IME increases the amount of effort and energy needed when reading, >> which consequently limits the amount of time I can spend reviewing >> and understanding code. > > It depends. In cases where you're focusing on structure than on > details of content smaller fonts are advantageous. In programming > there's a mixture of looking at contents and structure[*]. Here > the advantage of screens with a scalable font size beats paper; > you can adjust windows and fonts to fit actual necessities. YMMV. > (And there's yet more useful functions available, like folding.) > > [*] That's a difference to left-aligned, blocked prose text, BTW. I'm talking about cases where reading the content is an important part of the activity. If what I'm interested in is an overview, rather than the content, I would choose a different representation than simply some sort of scaling of the original source text. >> There are other reasons to want to limit >> line lengths to something near 80 columns, but the effect of output >> on standard paper media is one of the most compelling. > > Back in the days when paper was more commonly used I often printed > source code with a2ps in its default mode, which was 2 print pages > side by side on a landscape A4 paper (with a scaling equivalent of > ~71%); for 80-column programs that was fine - more columns would > result in extremely annoying line wrapping, which is actually the > primary reason for me to typically not use lines larger than these > 80 columns (that a lot of devices, tools, programs, and standards > rely on). That equally holds for displays and for output on paper! > > One aspect when working together with others on the same source is > important to be aware of; cleanly formatted 80-columns source code > can be trivially read by "anyone", but larger lines that wrap on > smaller devices (or on paper, if you like) is an unnecessary pain > for others; I would even call it anti-social. :-) I agree with the sentiment here. People who say, for example, 120+ character lines are okay, are focused primarily on their own views (both literally and figuratively) at the expense of others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 18:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vpni33$2ld5k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390468 |
On 26.02.2025 17:32, David Brown wrote:
> On 26/02/2025 15:39, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>> Just do your best to keep it neat and under 80 columns.
>>
>
> Neat, yes. 80 columns, no - unless you are living in the previous century.
That's the typical response of someone who obviously doesn't care. :-/
>
> Lines that are too long are hard to read, but the idea that 80 columns
> is a good number or should be a hard limit is /long/ outdated. About
> 100 - 120 columns is a better fit for a lot of code, letting you use
> sensible identifiers without excessively splitting logical lines into
> multiple physical lines.
This sounds more reasonable. :-)
But it depends. - Whether 80, 120, 180, or 240 are the holy grail?
From own experience a few observations...
In Java projects I've seen prevalently extreme long identifiers,
which result in extreme long lines; often hardly readable.
From typesetting we know that long lines are bad to read; why are
the newspaper columns so narrow?
Long lines are even worse to read if you use sans-serif fonts;
too bad that such bad fonts are dominating our modern world, and
especially in the IT ("thanks" MS for fostering Arial, etc.);
using less columns is also often advantageous here to compensate
the reduced legibility.
Don't expect that everyone has a screen as big as yours; that is
the case in companies but also in other places or projects where
code is shared or where people work together.
Myself I have the habit to take an 80 column screen as baseline,
organize my source code in that frame. But that's no credo; the
purpose is just to not let the lines get too long "by accident".
I then wrap the code at sensible places with indentation. And if
_some_ lines get longer, say your 100 or 120 columns, that's no
problem as long as the overall readability is still guaranteed.
Again, preferences vary, here as well.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-26 20:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vpnrld$2mq8h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390471 |
On 26/02/2025 18:13, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 26.02.2025 17:32, David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/02/2025 15:39, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>> Just do your best to keep it neat and under 80 columns.
>>>
>>
>> Neat, yes. 80 columns, no - unless you are living in the previous century.
>
> That's the typical response of someone who obviously doesn't care. :-/
>
I care about legibility of code, and convenience of working with it. I
don't care how well it fits in a text-only screen that is limited by
ancient hardware. I do plenty from the command-line, but if I am
working with a file from the command line, it is almost invariably under
a gui - terminal windows can be sized for convenience.
>>
>> Lines that are too long are hard to read, but the idea that 80 columns
>> is a good number or should be a hard limit is /long/ outdated. About
>> 100 - 120 columns is a better fit for a lot of code, letting you use
>> sensible identifiers without excessively splitting logical lines into
>> multiple physical lines.
>
> This sounds more reasonable. :-)
>
> But it depends. - Whether 80, 120, 180, or 240 are the holy grail?
There is /no/ holy grail - that's the point.
Too long lines are hard to read. Too short lines are hard to read. 80
columns is not a terrible choice, but it is too often too short,
especially if you try to view it as a hard limit.
> From own experience a few observations...
> In Java projects I've seen prevalently extreme long identifiers,
> which result in extreme long lines; often hardly readable.
Too short identifiers are bad - too long identifiers are bad.
Generally, identifier length should be roughly related to the size of
their scope.
> From typesetting we know that long lines are bad to read; why are
> the newspaper columns so narrow?
Newspaper columns are hard to read well - they are narrow because
newspapers are often trying to put a lot of stuff on one page despite it
being less legible.
The "ideal" length for prose will vary depending on the kind of text,
the language, the size and style of the font, the general layout, the
medium, and other factors. Somewhere between about 60 and 100
characters is typical.
> Long lines are even worse to read if you use sans-serif fonts;
> too bad that such bad fonts are dominating our modern world, and
> especially in the IT ("thanks" MS for fostering Arial, etc.);
> using less columns is also often advantageous here to compensate
> the reduced legibility.
> Don't expect that everyone has a screen as big as yours; that is
> the case in companies but also in other places or projects where
> code is shared or where people work together.
>
Shorter line lengths don't make it easier to work on smaller screens. A
smaller screen means less code is visible at a time, regardless of line
length.
> Myself I have the habit to take an 80 column screen as baseline,
> organize my source code in that frame. But that's no credo; the
> purpose is just to not let the lines get too long "by accident".
> I then wrap the code at sensible places with indentation. And if
> _some_ lines get longer, say your 100 or 120 columns, that's no
> problem as long as the overall readability is still guaranteed.
>
> Again, preferences vary, here as well.
>
Sure. I am simply arguing against hard and fast rules that are not
based on hard and fast reality.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 06:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vpourn$30a9h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390478 |
On 26.02.2025 20:56, David Brown wrote:
> On 26/02/2025 18:13, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 26.02.2025 17:32, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 26/02/2025 15:39, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>> Just do your best to keep it neat and under 80 columns.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Neat, yes. 80 columns, no - unless you are living in the previous
>>> century.
>>
>> That's the typical response of someone who obviously doesn't care. :-/
>>
>
> I care about legibility of code, and convenience of working with it. I
> don't care how well it fits in a text-only screen that is limited by
> ancient hardware.
Wherever and whenever it originated is not the question. - Here I was
just pointing out that "living in the previous century" is a typical
response of someone who obviously isn't much interested in rationales
and in discussions of these. We've heard that regularly, just recently
for example in context of "ancient editors". If there were interest we
would discuss it differently.
So lets see what follows... :-)
> I do plenty from the command-line, but if I am
> working with a file from the command line, it is almost invariably under
> a gui - terminal windows can be sized for convenience.
>
>>> [...]
>>
>> This sounds more reasonable. :-)
>>
>> [...]
>
> Too long lines are hard to read. Too short lines are hard to read.
Yes, I agree.
> 80 columns is not a terrible choice, but it is too often too short,
> especially if you try to view it as a hard limit.
Since decades now there are no such hard limits, so why do you make
up such a statement.
>> [...]
>
> Too short identifiers are bad - too long identifiers are bad.
Yes, as a rule of thumb, I agree.
Though it doesn't hold as sort of a general truth, because...
>
> Generally, identifier length should be roughly related to the size of
> their scope.
...of that. - I agree.
>
>> From typesetting we know that long lines are bad to read; why are
>> the newspaper columns so narrow?
>
> Newspaper columns are hard to read well - they are narrow because
> newspapers are often trying to put a lot of stuff on one page despite it
> being less legible.
I take this as your opinion.
In newspapers you can find articles that can span even a whole page.
It's nonetheless organized in small columns.
>
> The "ideal" length for prose will vary depending on the kind of text,
> the language, the size and style of the font, the general layout, the
> medium, and other factors.
Right.
> Somewhere between about 60 and 100 characters is typical.
These numbers appear strange to me. - A quick look into a couple of
different editions show more like 45-90 characters, with typical
values around 55-70 (including spaces counted as characters), i.e.
not in the extreme ranges. For these numbers I've inspected random
books written in different layouts, in three different languages,
and of different types. - I would be very astonished if that would
be fundamentally different in your language domain, but YMMV.
So I have to conclude that printed typical text would fit regularly
and easily in an 80 column mono-spaced medium.
>
>> Long lines are even worse to read if you use sans-serif fonts;
>> too bad that such bad fonts are dominating our modern world, and
>> especially in the IT ("thanks" MS for fostering Arial, etc.);
>> using less columns is also often advantageous here to compensate
>> the reduced legibility.
>> Don't expect that everyone has a screen as big as yours; that is
>> the case in companies but also in other places or projects where
>> code is shared or where people work together.
>>
>
> Shorter line lengths don't make it easier to work on smaller screens. A
> smaller screen means less code is visible at a time, regardless of line
> length.
It's not about "small screens"; it's about readability as being a
function of the used line-length. But readability, while probably
a most important factor, is not the only aspect...
Myself I usually operate on a minimum of two physical screens, and
(with my font setting) each one capable of displaying two 80-column
windows side by side. I regularly work with more than one text file
in parallel, and if there's some source with significantly larger
line width I either have to scroll sidewards of have to accept line
wraps at arbitrary (typically very bad) places with all the negative
effects! It's much better to define the code layout yourself, better
for legibility in the first place, and better to work with available
typical resources.
>
>> Myself I have the habit to take an 80 column screen as baseline,
>> organize my source code in that frame. But that's no credo; the
>> purpose is just to not let the lines get too long "by accident".
>> I then wrap the code at sensible places with indentation. And if
>> _some_ lines get longer, say your 100 or 120 columns, that's no
>> problem as long as the overall readability is still guaranteed.
>>
>> Again, preferences vary, here as well.
>>
>
> Sure. I am simply arguing against hard and fast rules that are not
> based on hard and fast reality.
There was no hard rule as should have been obvious by what I wrote.
The 80 column rule [of thumb] is a good (empirical) base; while it
may have had its origin in historic hard limits of IT devices (like
VT100 or some such - that, BTW, are also not completely arbitrarily
chosen!) it is also a _sensible value_ given the expertise of the
printed media, and the reality of work (in the IT sector or else).
YMMV.
Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-27 16:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vpq1es$35inm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390492 |
On 27/02/2025 06:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 26.02.2025 20:56, David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/02/2025 18:13, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 26.02.2025 17:32, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 26/02/2025 15:39, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Just do your best to keep it neat and under 80 columns.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Neat, yes. 80 columns, no - unless you are living in the previous
>>>> century.
>>>
>>> That's the typical response of someone who obviously doesn't care. :-/
>>>
>>
>> I care about legibility of code, and convenience of working with it. I
>> don't care how well it fits in a text-only screen that is limited by
>> ancient hardware.
>
> Wherever and whenever it originated is not the question. - Here I was
> just pointing out that "living in the previous century" is a typical
> response of someone who obviously isn't much interested in rationales
> and in discussions of these. We've heard that regularly, just recently
> for example in context of "ancient editors". If there were interest we
> would discuss it differently.
Ah, okay, I see what you mean. Yes, I used "emotive language" to
emphasise my dislike for decisions that are based /solely/ on "we've
always done it that way" or "that's what other people do". These can be
relevant factors in a decision - there's always a cost in changing
things or picking unusual solutions, and that must be weighed against
benefits from doing things differently. But they should not be
overriding factors - unfortunately, often people treat them that way.
There is no implication in what I wrote, or the way I wrote it, that I
don't care. Indeed, the implication from my language is that I /do/
care - I care enough to mock those who don't care and don't consider
such things (code style, in this case) but merely stick to old habits
without thought.
>
> So lets see what follows... :-)
>
>> I do plenty from the command-line, but if I am
>> working with a file from the command line, it is almost invariably under
>> a gui - terminal windows can be sized for convenience.
>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> This sounds more reasonable. :-)
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Too long lines are hard to read. Too short lines are hard to read.
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
>> 80 columns is not a terrible choice, but it is too often too short,
>> especially if you try to view it as a hard limit.
>
> Since decades now there are no such hard limits, so why do you make
> up such a statement.
That's exactly the point - there /are/ no real hard limits, and have not
been any since we moved on from pure text-mode terminals. Some
situations have short line limits (such as for a slideshow in a
presentation), most situations for normal coding can be as wide as the
developer finds convenient.
So why do some people think that 80 columns should be a hard limit to
their line length? They do not, for the most part, think 80 characters
is ideal for readability, or for display, or for printing, or for
writing code, or for reviewing it, or for any other use. For the most
part, they don't think at all. They simply regurgitate 80 columns
because IBM picked 80 columns as the width of punched cards in 1928. If
IBM had picked 72 columns or 96 columns, Bradley would have written
"Just do your best to keep it neat and under 72 columns" or "Just do
your best to keep it neat and under 96 columns".
If a particular person has good, technical reasons for picking 80
columns as a limit - or indeed, for picking a hard limit at all - then
that's fair enough. If a person sees a strong advantage in having a
fixed limit, and concludes (based on their real code needs) that they
often need lines more than 60 characters but very rarely want more than
80, and thus sets their limit at 80 - then fair enough.
>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Too short identifiers are bad - too long identifiers are bad.
>
> Yes, as a rule of thumb, I agree.
>
> Though it doesn't hold as sort of a general truth, because...
It /does/ hold as a general truth, with the implicit context added.
>
>>
>> Generally, identifier length should be roughly related to the size of
>> their scope.
>
> ...of that. - I agree.
>
>>
>>> From typesetting we know that long lines are bad to read; why are
>>> the newspaper columns so narrow?
>>
>> Newspaper columns are hard to read well - they are narrow because
>> newspapers are often trying to put a lot of stuff on one page despite it
>> being less legible.
>
> I take this as your opinion.
>
OK.
> In newspapers you can find articles that can span even a whole page.
> It's nonetheless organized in small columns.
Of course different newspapers do things differently.
And maybe there are other reasons for having columns that are often far
too narrow for legibility, sometimes leading to horrible inconsistent
spacing, really messy hyphenation, and the like.
Columns are clearly required for newspapers - the pages are (usually)
far too wide to be comfortable to read without splitting up into
columns. The question is what width they should be.
Generally, around 60 - 70 characters is common for quick, easy reading,
such as most books. Technical documents can have a good deal more - a
quick check suggests that the C standards have around 90 characters per
line, while the C++ standards (with a smaller typeface) have about 105.
A technical white paper that I happen to have open at the moment has 120
character lines.
Newspaper columns are often much shorter - 30 to 40 characters. So why
is that?
The prime purpose of a newspaper is, obviously, to make money. The more
you put in the same area, the better. Having regular column sizes
reduces costs (especially before computer-based layout and printing).
It makes it easier to sell advertising space.
Modern newspapers can be more flexible in their layouts, but keeping a
familiar look is important. Legibility of individual columns of text is
much less important - after all, most readers scan headlines and only
read a small proportion of the column text.
>
>>
>> The "ideal" length for prose will vary depending on the kind of text,
>> the language, the size and style of the font, the general layout, the
>> medium, and other factors.
>
> Right.
>
>> Somewhere between about 60 and 100 characters is typical.
>
> These numbers appear strange to me. - A quick look into a couple of
> different editions show more like 45-90 characters, with typical
> values around 55-70 (including spaces counted as characters), i.e.
> not in the extreme ranges. For these numbers I've inspected random
> books written in different layouts, in three different languages,
> and of different types. - I would be very astonished if that would
> be fundamentally different in your language domain, but YMMV.
>
What did you actually look at? Novels? Textbooks? Documents written
for A4 page sizes? Newspapers? Old legal documents?
> So I have to conclude that printed typical text would fit regularly
> and easily in an 80 column mono-spaced medium.
>
Your conclusion would be wrong, unless you are limiting it to specific
areas. (The word "typical" is very vague.)
>>
>>> Long lines are even worse to read if you use sans-serif fonts;
>>> too bad that such bad fonts are dominating our modern world, and
>>> especially in the IT ("thanks" MS for fostering Arial, etc.);
>>> using less columns is also often advantageous here to compensate
>>> the reduced legibility.
>>> Don't expect that everyone has a screen as big as yours; that is
>>> the case in companies but also in other places or projects where
>>> code is shared or where people work together.
>>>
>>
>> Shorter line lengths don't make it easier to work on smaller screens. A
>> smaller screen means less code is visible at a time, regardless of line
>> length.
>
> It's not about "small screens"; it's about readability as being a
> function of the used line-length. But readability, while probably
> a most important factor, is not the only aspect...
>
I agree that readability is key here. But remember that readability of
code is not the same thing as readability of prose. Doing too much in
one line of code makes it hard to understand - regardless of how many
characters it actually uses. Taking something that is logically one
operation or expression and artificially splitting it into two (or more)
lines to suit an arbitrary line length limit also makes the code hard to
understand.
Small screens and line length are related in that they place a physical
limit on the length of a line you can have and still read easily.
> Myself I usually operate on a minimum of two physical screens, and
> (with my font setting) each one capable of displaying two 80-column
> windows side by side.
That seems small to me. I have no problem with two approximately
120-column windows side-by-side in my IDE, along with all the additional
junk - file lists, code outlines, line numbers, scroll bars, etc.
Sometimes I will have three files side-by-side, with a bit less space
for the junk, depending on what I am doing. (I usually have other stuff
like command windows, serial terminals, webpages, documents, etc., on
the other screens.)
> I regularly work with more than one text file
> in parallel, and if there's some source with significantly larger
> line width I either have to scroll sidewards of have to accept line
> wraps at arbitrary (typically very bad) places with all the negative
> effects! It's much better to define the code layout yourself, better
> for legibility in the first place, and better to work with available
> typical resources.
>
Sure. I do the same, for the same reasons. But I don't restrict myself
to so short line lengths. (Of course most of the lines in my code are
shorter than 80 characters.)
>>
>>> Myself I have the habit to take an 80 column screen as baseline,
>>> organize my source code in that frame. But that's no credo; the
>>> purpose is just to not let the lines get too long "by accident".
>>> I then wrap the code at sensible places with indentation. And if
>>> _some_ lines get longer, say your 100 or 120 columns, that's no
>>> problem as long as the overall readability is still guaranteed.
>>>
>>> Again, preferences vary, here as well.
>>>
>>
>> Sure. I am simply arguing against hard and fast rules that are not
>> based on hard and fast reality.
>
> There was no hard rule as should have been obvious by what I wrote.
>
I haven't suggested that /you/ have such a hard rule.
> The 80 column rule [of thumb] is a good (empirical) base; while it
> may have had its origin in historic hard limits of IT devices (like
> VT100 or some such - that, BTW, are also not completely arbitrarily
> chosen!) it is also a _sensible value_ given the expertise of the
> printed media, and the reality of work (in the IT sector or else).
>
80 characters is not the worst rule you could pick, but it is far from
optimal for lots of uses - including lots of prose, printed text, online
documents, and coding.
> YMMV.
>
Of course :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-28 00:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpr019$3b2ld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390517 |
On 27/02/2025 15:47, David Brown wrote: > > Newspaper columns are often much shorter - 30 to 40 characters. So why > is that? Because newspapers are basically in portrait format, so long thin columns fit well. Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, so 80 columns was often a hard limit. Now you have larger landscape screens, with windows that can be stretched as wide as you like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-28 14:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250228144442.00002037@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #390538 |
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote: > On 27/02/2025 15:47, David Brown wrote: > > > > Newspaper columns are often much shorter - 30 to 40 characters. So > > why is that? > > Because newspapers are basically in portrait format, so long thin > columns fit well. > > Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than square. > so 80 > columns was often a hard limit. > > Now you have larger landscape screens, with windows that can be > stretched as wide as you like. > For many years I use 1200x1920 (yes, portait) as my main monitor at work. Turning Full HD 90 degrees does not work as well - 1080 is too narrow. In this case 11% difference matters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-28 21:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vpt8vu$3r2n0$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390556 |
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:44:42 +0200, Michael S wrote: > My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than > square. Also A4 (portrait) and A3 (landscape, i.e. 2 × A4 side by side) size ... natural for laying out documents to be printed on paper. > For many years I use 1200x1920 (yes, portait) as my main monitor at > work. Also note that ratio is 5:8 (or 8:5, turned the other way), which is close to the Golden Ratio. I think that is the ideal shape for a multi-purpose computer monitor these days. Pity it is so hard to get.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-02 13:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <868qpnw2sn.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #390556 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 > Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote: [...] >> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, > > My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than > square. Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height). Certainly not square. >> so 80 columns was often a hard limit. The reasoning here is backwards. The choice of 80 columns wasn't made to accommodate a given aspect ratio; rather, the choice of screen width was made to accommodate 80 columns. Furthermore the choice of 80 columns was not plucked out of thin air, or made to fit some accidental hardware constraint; rather, the choice of 80 columns was made to provide a suitable width for a single line, and hardware was designed around that. Probably the choice of having only 24 lines was made for some kind of balance and for cost reasons. But the choice of 80 columns was made long before choices were made for computer terminals. >> Now you have larger landscape screens, with windows that can be >> stretched as wide as you like. A common aspect ratio these days is 16:9 (ie, HD). But that choice was made to be able to show movies, not to allow absurdly long lines of text, which is an incidental consequence. > For many years I use 1200x1920 (yes, portait) as my main monitor > at work. > Turning Full HD 90 degrees does not work as well - 1080 is too > narrow. In this case 11% difference matters. My sense is that an aspect ratio of 7:5 or 3:2 (in both cases height:width) is about right for one page. We might want a small strip of screen real estate for a header, so going from 1.5 to 1.6 seems workable (note incidentally that 1920:1200 is a ratio of 1.6). But HD is 1.78 to 1; that shape is just awkward for the display of text.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 14:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20250303141305.00002119@yahoo.com> |
| In reply to | #390667 |
On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800 Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 > > Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote: > [...] > >> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, > > > > My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than > > square. > > Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old > computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height). > Certainly not square. > Are you sure that you measured viewing area? The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main graphics mode (64x480). 240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display 212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display 283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display > >> so 80 columns was often a hard limit. > > The reasoning here is backwards. The choice of 80 columns wasn't > made to accommodate a given aspect ratio; rather, the choice of > screen width was made to accommodate 80 columns. Furthermore the > choice of 80 columns was not plucked out of thin air, or made to > fit some accidental hardware constraint; rather, the choice of 80 > columns was made to provide a suitable width for a single line, and > hardware was designed around that. > > Probably the choice of having only 24 lines was made for some kind > of balance and for cost reasons. But the choice of 80 columns was > made long before choices were made for computer terminals. > > >> Now you have larger landscape screens, with windows that can be > >> stretched as wide as you like. > > A common aspect ratio these days is 16:9 (ie, HD). But that > choice was made to be able to show movies, not to allow absurdly > long lines of text, which is an incidental consequence. > > > For many years I use 1200x1920 (yes, portait) as my main monitor > > at work. > > Turning Full HD 90 degrees does not work as well - 1080 is too > > narrow. In this case 11% difference matters. > > My sense is that an aspect ratio of 7:5 or 3:2 (in both cases > height:width) is about right for one page. We might want a small > strip of screen real estate for a header, so going from 1.5 to > 1.6 seems workable (note incidentally that 1920:1200 is a ratio > of 1.6). But HD is 1.78 to 1; that shape is just awkward for > the display of text. In case of FHD turned 90 Degrees I am less concerned about ratio. I just find 1080 pixel width insufficient. If somebody gives me 1200x2048 (W:H) display I will use it just fine despite almost the same ratio as 1080x1920. The use case is several landscape windows placed one above another. Most of the time attention concentrated on one window, but occasionally goes to the others without need to resize or minimize anything. I find it more convenient than arranging windows side-by-side or then using multiple monitors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 12:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq47b0$19uq2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390685 |
On 03/03/2025 12:13, Michael S wrote: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800 > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 >>> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> [...] >>>> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, >>> >>> My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than >>> square. >> >> Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old >> computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height). >> Certainly not square. >> > > Are you sure that you measured viewing area? > The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing > area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main > graphics mode (64x480). > > 240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display > 212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display > 283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display It depends on the aspect ratio of the pixels. But from I remember, in 640x480 mode, they were square, so the aspect of the full-frame image, assuming no overscan, would be 4:3. The CRT physical aspect is harder to measure (some may be masked by the enclosure for example). Domestic TV sizes in that era (40 years ago) were also 4:3, in the UK at least. And a lot of monitors would have been about the same. (I was then developing graphics hardware with increasing resolution, but one problem was finding suitable monitors, with a finer shadow mask for colour, that could accommodate higher line and frame rates. Wide-screen didn't start become popular until much later. I do remember massive monitors like ones with a 5:4 display, or 1280x1024, that I had to lug to trade shows.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq4b37$1asrp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390687 |
On 03/03/2025 12:29, bart wrote: > On 03/03/2025 12:13, Michael S wrote: >> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800 >> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: >> >>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 >>>> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, >>>> >>>> My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than >>>> square. >>> >>> Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old >>> computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height). >>> Certainly not square. >>> >> >> Are you sure that you measured viewing area? >> The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing >> area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main >> graphics mode (64x480). >> >> 240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display >> 212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display >> 283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display > > It depends on the aspect ratio of the pixels. But from I remember, in > 640x480 mode, they were square, so the aspect of the full-frame image, > assuming no overscan, would be 4:3. The CRT physical aspect is harder to > measure (some may be masked by the enclosure for example). > > Domestic TV sizes in that era (40 years ago) were also 4:3, in the UK at > least. And a lot of monitors would have been about the same. For home micros; Spectrums, BBCs, C64s etc, the TV was the monitor. > > (I was then developing graphics hardware with increasing resolution, but > one problem was finding suitable monitors, with a finer shadow mask for > colour, that could accommodate higher line and frame rates. > > Wide-screen didn't start become popular until much later. I do remember > massive monitors like ones with a 5:4 display, or 1280x1024, that I had > to lug to trade shows.) > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 13:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq4cgj$1b4k4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390689 |
On 03/03/2025 13:33, Richard Harnden wrote: > On 03/03/2025 12:29, bart wrote: >> On 03/03/2025 12:13, Michael S wrote: >>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800 >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 >>>>> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>>> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, >>>>> >>>>> My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than >>>>> square. >>>> >>>> Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old >>>> computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height). >>>> Certainly not square. >>>> >>> >>> Are you sure that you measured viewing area? >>> The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing >>> area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main >>> graphics mode (64x480). >>> >>> 240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display >>> 212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display >>> 283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display >> >> It depends on the aspect ratio of the pixels. But from I remember, in >> 640x480 mode, they were square, so the aspect of the full-frame image, >> assuming no overscan, would be 4:3. The CRT physical aspect is harder >> to measure (some may be masked by the enclosure for example). >> >> Domestic TV sizes in that era (40 years ago) were also 4:3, in the UK >> at least. And a lot of monitors would have been about the same. > > For home micros; Spectrums, BBCs, C64s etc, the TV was the monitor. I'm saying that even monitors designed for computer use (so with RGB inputs, finer shadow masks and higher line rates, including those for mono) were around that same aspect: 4:3 or squarer, rather than wider. Wider ones may well have existed, but in the period I'm talking about, from 1980 to sometime in the 90s, they were uncommon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 03:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq5ra7$1j356$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390687 |
On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 12:29:22 +0000, bart wrote: > It depends on the aspect ratio of the pixels. But from I remember, in > 640x480 mode, they were square ... This is just shorthand for saying the pixel density is uniform, i.e. the same horizontally and vertically. Remember, pixels have no shape. In ideal sampling, they are dimensionless points. Those “pixels” you see on your screen are shaped by what’s called the “reconstruction function”. This takes the set of sample values to generate an analog image which is some approximation of the original input image (if the input came from an image of the real world).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 10:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86senuuey0.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #390685 |
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800 > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote: > >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 >>> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, >>> >>> My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than >>> square. >> >> Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old >> computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height). >> Certainly not square. > > Are you sure that you measured viewing area? > The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing > area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main > graphics mode (64x480). > > 240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display > 212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display > 283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display I turned on the monitor, got it to display a full screen of characters, and put a tape measure next to the screen, measuring the distances (one horizontal, one vertical) between outside edges of the character array. It's possible my measurements were a little bit off, but not so much I think as the difference between 5:4 and 3:2. >>> For many years I use 1200x1920 (yes, portait) as my main monitor >>> at work. >>> Turning Full HD 90 degrees does not work as well - 1080 is too >>> narrow. In this case 11% difference matters. >> >> My sense is that an aspect ratio of 7:5 or 3:2 (in both cases >> height:width) is about right for one page. We might want a small >> strip of screen real estate for a header, so going from 1.5 to >> 1.6 seems workable (note incidentally that 1920:1200 is a ratio >> of 1.6). But HD is 1.78 to 1; that shape is just awkward for >> the display of text. > > In case of FHD turned 90 Degrees I am less concerned about ratio. > I just find 1080 pixel width insufficient. > If somebody gives me 1200x2048 (W:H) display I will use it just fine > despite almost the same ratio as 1080x1920. > The use case is several landscape windows placed one above another. Most > of the time attention concentrated on one window, but occasionally goes > to the others without need to resize or minimize anything. I find it > more convenient than arranging windows side-by-side or then using > multiple monitors. Interesting. I am curious to see you in your work environment, not that I think that will ever happen.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gRjxP.122767$FVcd.55407@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #390667 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes: > >> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000 >> Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote: >[...] >>> Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square, >> >> My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than >> square. > >Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old >computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height). >Certainly not square. > >>> so 80 columns was often a hard limit. > >The reasoning here is backwards. The choice of 80 columns wasn't >made to accommodate a given aspect ratio; rather, the choice of >screen width was made to accommodate 80 columns. Furthermore the >choice of 80 columns was not plucked out of thin air, or made to >fit some accidental hardware constraint; rather, the choice of 80 >columns was made to provide a suitable width for a single line, and >hardware was designed around that. Specifically around the number of columns on a punched card, which had been used for programming for years before video terminals were common. In 1982, I visited a Sperry-Univac office in Clear Lake, Ia and they were still mostly programming with cards - they had a couple of video terminals on carts that were shared, but they had far more than two programmers competing for them. When I started at Burroughs in '83, each programmer had a TD-830 (24x80), having recently eliminated the limited number of cart-based terminals. One of the older programmers had complained that the terminals weren't used all the time, so it was a waste of money - until someone pointed out to him that his car was sitting in the parking lot most of the day. Note also that many early terminals supported only 12 lines due to the high cost of terminal RAM. >My sense is that an aspect ratio of 7:5 or 3:2 (in both cases >height:width) is about right for one page. We might want a small >strip of screen real estate for a header, so going from 1.5 to >1.6 seems workable (note incidentally that 1920:1200 is a ratio >of 1.6). But HD is 1.78 to 1; that shape is just awkward for >the display of text. Personally, I generally use vim with both horizontal and vertical splits to edit multiple source files and headers in a single window (using tabs as well, since the project has several hundred source files). Each split is usually about 30x90.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web