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 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 10:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86wmd6ufne.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #390695 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> 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. Nothing wrong with using HD aspect ratio for display of multiple pages. My comment above is about an HD aspect ratio for display of a single page.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-03 15:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8734ftn1fb.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #390695 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
[...]
>>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.
And the physical size of the cards was select to match the size of US
currency at the time Hollerith cards were invented (1862-1923; modern US
currency is not the same size). This was so that the cards could be
used with the same equipment used to handle currency.
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 (and it's a nice round
number). And 80-column video terminals were baed on card sizes (though
I think some earlier terminals had 40 columns).
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, doesn't automatically mean that it's a
bad rule of thumb for line length. I'm writing this message in a window
that's 159 columns wide, but I still keep text a bit shorter than 80
columns, out of old habit and/or because I find it easier to read. Most
of my code (include C code, so we're still topical) is also under 80
columns, but I'm not quite as strict about that.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 03:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq5rc8$1j356$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390720 |
On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 15:23:52 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote: > 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 (and it's a nice round > number). And 80-column video terminals were baed on card sizes (though > I think some earlier terminals had 40 columns). Where did 132-column printers come from?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 06:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vq6250$1nve4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390729 |
On 04.03.2025 04:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 15:23:52 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> 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 (and it's a nice round >> number). And 80-column video terminals were baed on card sizes (though >> I think some earlier terminals had 40 columns). > > Where did 132-column printers come from? From IBM ? - Or S&H ? Historically there were various types of printers developed that were supporting various number of characters per line. Some printer types, e.g. from IBM, especially the chain-printers that were common in IT, supported 132 characters. - My guess would be that because of IBM's dominance in IT back these days made that a not uncommon choice. Once any (company-)standard is in the world other vendors orient on that. (There have also been other chain-printers with 100 characters/line. And other printer types with yet more variance in characters/line.) Such chain-printer standard might later have influenced also terminals like the VT100 with its 80/132 display modes. (Here we have to also consider the display character masks; it must somehow evenly fit into the sizes and be still readable.) Other factors in printing technology can probably be derived from common paper sizes and the colonial, inch-based units; standards like printers printing 10 characters per inch, or fonts measured in dots per inch. (I'd think quite some quasi-arbitrary numbers can be derived.) WRT chain-printers; the paper width is quite unwieldy for non-IT use. (I suppose they wanted to not restrict possible data output too much.) Linearly calculating down the listing-paper size from its format to Letter format (or DIN A4) will result in values more common for books. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 05:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq63md$1o5s3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390732 |
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 06:12:54 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > On 04.03.2025 04:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> Where did 132-column printers come from? > > From IBM ? - Or S&H ? The point being, the idea that 80 columns is a good line length for programming is, shall we say, based on doubtful evidence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 03:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <87sentkoni.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #390733 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 06:12:54 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 04.03.2025 04:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Where did 132-column printers come from?
>>
>> From IBM ? - Or S&H ?
>
> The point being, the idea that 80 columns is a good line length for
> programming is, shall we say, based on doubtful evidence.
Why are you writing that in (indirect) response to a post in which I
already acknowledged that?
If your question about 132-column printers was intended to make a point,
why not just make that point directly?
From upthread, where I summarized the technological background for
80-column lines:
"""
I'll just note that the fact that 80 is an arbitrary number, based on
technologies we no longer use, doesn't automatically mean that it's a
bad rule of thumb for line length.
"""
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 15:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <GnFxP.150448$BrX.33699@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #390749 |
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes: >Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 06:12:54 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 04.03.2025 04:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> Where did 132-column printers come from? >>> >>> From IBM ? - Or S&H ? >> >> The point being, the idea that 80 columns is a good line length for >> programming is, shall we say, based on doubtful evidence. > >Why are you writing that in (indirect) response to a post in which I >already acknowledged that? Because he's a troll? > >If your question about 132-column printers was intended to make a point, >why not just make that point directly? Because he's a troll?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 20:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq7p0i$21hcq$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390733 |
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 05:39:25 -0000 (UTC), I wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 06:12:54 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > >> On 04.03.2025 04:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> Where did 132-column printers come from? >> >> From IBM ? - Or S&H ? > > The point being, the idea that 80 columns is a good line length for > programming is, shall we say, based on doubtful evidence. And also, there was one computer company, might have been ICL, that used 90-column punch cards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-04 22:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_XKxP.57690$zz8b.8675@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #390774 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: >On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 05:39:25 -0000 (UTC), I wrote: > >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 06:12:54 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >> >>> On 04.03.2025 04:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> Where did 132-column printers come from? >>> >>> From IBM ? - Or S&H ? >> >> The point being, the idea that 80 columns is a good line length for >> programming is, shall we say, based on doubtful evidence. > >And also, there was one computer company, might have been ICL, that used >90-column punch cards. That would be Rand. A more (but not fully) complete answer would include 96-columns from the company was once known as the Computing Scale Company.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-05 05:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vq8ipa$297go$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390774 |
On 04.03.2025 21:49, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 05:39:25 -0000 (UTC), I wrote: >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 06:12:54 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote: >>> On 04.03.2025 04:17, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> Where did 132-column printers come from? >>> >>> From IBM ? - Or S&H ? >> >> The point being, the idea that 80 columns is a good line length for >> programming is, shall we say, based on doubtful evidence. > > And also, there was one computer company, might have been ICL, that used > 90-column punch cards. Not only one; there were various sizes around; I find for example 80 - IBM, Bull 45, 90 - Rand 21, 40, 65, 80, 130, 160 - ICT So what? (For "programming" sensible ranges depend on many factors; first of all on the programming language, and then on the structuring of your code, used identifier lengths, expression complexity, and whatnot. Trying to compensate suboptimal programming choices by extending the used line length doesn't solve the basic readability issues but often just introduce other upthread already mentioned issues. YMMV.) Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-05 04:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vq8jlm$29b1d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #390789 |
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 05:09:08 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote: > Trying to compensate suboptimal programming choices by extending the > used line length ... The term “strawman” comes to mind ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-21 02:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8634f6n2k8.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #390720 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-21 14:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <_neDP.1161502$_N6e.249216@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #391470 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >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. I have a hardcover book about punched cards somewhere in storage - came from the Burroughs library when they closed it. I'll try to dig it out if I get a chance. Casey, Robert S. and Perry, James W. Editors Punched Cards - Their application to science and industry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-21 14:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <SpeDP.1161503$_N6e.551434@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #391473 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>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. > >I have a hardcover book about punched cards somewhere >in storage - came from the Burroughs library when they >closed it. I'll try to dig it out if I get a chance. > >Casey, Robert S. and Perry, James W. Editors >Punched Cards - Their application to science and industry https://archive.org/stream/PunchedCardsTheirApplicationsToScienceAndIndustry/Punched_cards-their_applications_to_science_and_industry_djvu.txt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86y0wxkwfb.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391474 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I have a hardcover book about punched cards somewhere
>> in storage - came from the Burroughs library when they
>> closed it. I'll try to dig it out if I get a chance.
>>
>> Casey, Robert S. and Perry, James W. Editors
>> Punched Cards - Their application to science and industry
>
> https://archive.org/stream/
> PunchedCardsTheirApplicationsToScienceAndIndustry/
> Punched_cards-their_applications_to_science_and_industry_djvu.txt
A remarkable document. Thank you for the link.
I perused it only briefly before deciding that the 600+ pages
(or is it 900+ pages?) had a lot more material than what I
was willing to tackle.
Thinking it might be interesting, I gathered some information and
statistics from the contents, in particular having to do with
line widths. After eliminating lines that looked like overly
long gibberish (hundreds or thousands of characters), lines that
looked like they were meant to be set in a smaller font (mostly
footnotes and figure captions), and discarding lines shorter than
66 characters (because they are probably short lines at the end
of a paragraph), I came up with these results.
17308 lines, ranging from 66 to 91 characters
average: 73.95 characters
std dev: 3.48 characters
length percent prcntile
------ ------- --------
66 1.01 1.01
67 1.63 2.64
68 2.62 5.26
69 4.06 9.32
70 6.07 15.39
71 8.35 23.75
72 10.62 34.37
73 11.97 46.33
74 11.88 58.21
75 11.36 69.57
76 9.58 79.15
77 6.75 85.90
78 4.88 90.78
79 3.09 93.87
80 2.19 96.06
81 1.39 97.45
82 0.91 98.35
83 0.69 99.05
84 0.47 99.52
85 0.21 99.73
86 0.13 99.86
87 0.07 99.93
88 0.06 99.99
91 0.01 100.00
Notes:
There were only two lines of length 91. I couldn't tell if they
were distinct in some way from the other lines (other than being
longer).
In some cases the line widths are probably too high, because of
html-isms like < and so forth.
I expect the book uses proportionally spaced fonts rather than
fixed-width fonts, but the contents are part of a <pre></pre>
block so that's just a guess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ORzDP.1208308$_N6e.531060@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #391500 |
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I have a hardcover book about punched cards somewhere >>> in storage - came from the Burroughs library when they >>> closed it. I'll try to dig it out if I get a chance. >>> >>> Casey, Robert S. and Perry, James W. Editors >>> Punched Cards - Their application to science and industry >> >> https://archive.org/stream/ >> PunchedCardsTheirApplicationsToScienceAndIndustry/ >> Punched_cards-their_applications_to_science_and_industry_djvu.txt > >A remarkable document. Thank you for the link. The hardcover has nice B&W pictures of most of the gear. The text document on archive.org is a poorly formatted scan thereof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-03-22 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <86ecyoluhk.fsf@linuxsc.com> |
| In reply to | #391509 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: > >> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >> >>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: >>> >>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> I have a hardcover book about punched cards somewhere >>>> in storage - came from the Burroughs library when they >>>> closed it. I'll try to dig it out if I get a chance. >>>> >>>> Casey, Robert S. and Perry, James W. Editors >>>> Punched Cards - Their application to science and industry >>> >>> https://archive.org/stream/ >>> PunchedCardsTheirApplicationsToScienceAndIndustry/ >>> Punched_cards-their_applications_to_science_and_industry_djvu.txt >> >> A remarkable document. Thank you for the link. > > The hardcover has nice B&W pictures of most of the gear. > > The text document on archive.org is a poorly formatted scan thereof. Yes, that was more or less what I assumed is the case. The poorly formatted scan does appear to preserve line boundaries, however.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-01 05:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 80 char lines and holerith cards [Was:Which code style do you prefer the most?] |
| Message-ID | <vsfnja$24kb9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391470 |
On 2025-03-21 10:41, Tim Rentsch wrote: > 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. > Another likely inspiration at the time would be the number of characters per line on ordinary office paper of the period using ordinary typewriters of the period . Record keeping clerks would be experienced in fitting tables of data in that limit, and some machines would need to output the contents of cards as text on regular sheets of paper suitable for existing archival storage places, such as the binders used for collating official/business correspondence . At the time, punched cards were a temporary storage medium for data processing, sometimes used as an input medium, but rarely as the output format. Data older than use of typewriters would be hand written on the same or similar paper sizes, loose sheet or in already bound ledgers . Some organizations had kept records in those formats for 1000+ years already. I also believe the format was a few decades older than 1920, which would still fit the theory . Enjoy Jakob -- Jakob Bohm, MSc.Eng., I speak only for myself, not my company This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors All trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-01 09:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 80 char lines and holerith cards [Was:Which code style do you prefer the most?] |
| Message-ID | <vsg5kg$2iss6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #391817 |
On 01.04.2025 05:46, Jakob Bohm wrote: >> [...] > > Another likely inspiration at the time would be the number of > characters per line on ordinary office paper of the period using > ordinary typewriters of the period. [...] Yes. Just as an addition; my typewriter has a ruler ranging from column 0, 10, 20, to 80 - where the numbers were indicating the left and the right bounds of the characters; i.e., 1st character was between 0 and 1 - thus 80 columns total. As you say that was also the standard width of the paper we use here (DIN A4, 21 cm). The typewriter was used with configured soft bounds to not start at column 0 on the left side but to keep some indent space and also on the right side. Moreover the ruler continued a few (four) characters before the column 0 mark and also after column 80; it was possible to "unlock" that space on demand to exceed the soft limit, or also the hard limit in case non-standard paper of larger width would have to be used. But it's noteworthy to mention that there were also typewriters with wider carriages existing; I saw one in a tyres manufacturing company. But these types were obviously rarer. I don't know whether it's been used to type on A3 or on landscape A4 or on other paper. Janis
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-01 13:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 80 char lines and holerith cards [Was:Which code style do you prefer the most?] |
| Message-ID | <KcSGP.106256$3te7.23740@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #391817 |
Jakob Bohm <egenagwemdimtapsar@jbohm.dk> writes: >On 2025-03-21 10:41, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> 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. >> > >Another likely inspiration at the time would be the number of >characters per line on ordinary office paper of the period using >ordinary typewriters of the period . Indeed, at a pitch of 10, an 80 character line left 1/4" margins on an US standard 8.5" wide sheet of paper. The margin bell usually rang at 72 characters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web