Groups > comp.lang.python > #9630 > unrolled thread

Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won.

Started by	rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com>
First post	2011-07-16 09:51 -0700
Last post	2011-07-17 20:35 -0400
Articles	20 on this page of 103 — 30 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

  Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 09:51 -0700
    Re: feeding the troll (was: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won.) Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-07-16 12:52 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 17:59 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2011-07-16 16:06 -0700
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 02:29 -0500
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> - 2011-07-18 22:36 -0700
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 01:39 -0600
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2011-07-17 09:52 +1000
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-17 13:09 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. anand jeyahar <anand.ibmgsi@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 09:29 +0530
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2011-07-17 14:12 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 01:32 -0600
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. TheSaint <no@nowhere.net.no> - 2011-07-17 21:12 +0800
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 08:15 -0700
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-07-17 13:22 -0500
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:49 -0700
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:48 -0600
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:54 -0700
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 16:02 -0600
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-07-17 19:29 -0400
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 18:55 -0500
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-07-17 20:28 -0400
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 19:48 -0500
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 19:50 -0500
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-07-17 21:06 -0400
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2011-07-17 21:06 -0400
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-18 11:01 +1000
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-18 11:12 +1000
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2011-07-18 11:42 +1000
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-18 18:26 +1200
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-07-18 05:52 -0500
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-18 13:52 +0000
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2011-07-18 17:59 +0100
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2011-07-18 19:07 -0400
                        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-19 00:59 +1000
                          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dave Angel <davea@ieee.org> - 2011-07-18 13:11 -0400
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. python@bdurham.com - 2011-07-18 08:33 -0400
                      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. gene heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2011-07-18 10:12 -0400
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. tinnews@isbd.co.uk - 2011-07-18 10:49 +0100
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 21:51 +0300
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 14:06 -0500
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-19 05:15 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 02:52 -0500
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. "Anders J. Munch" <2011@jmunch.dk> - 2011-07-17 11:49 +0200
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 09:53 -0700
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 03:11 +1000
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 10:57 -0700
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 04:09 +1000
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 20:20 +0200
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:22 -0700
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:38 +0300
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:36 +0300
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-18 10:54 +1000
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 20:26 -0500
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2011-07-18 09:00 +0300
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Cameron Simpson <cs@zip.com.au> - 2011-07-18 08:14 +1000
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 21:44 +0200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. "Anders J. Munch" <2011@jmunch.dk> - 2011-07-18 20:19 +0200
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2011-07-18 10:06 +1200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 18:58 +0200
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 19:29 -0500
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-07-17 13:07 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-16 22:20 -0500
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 09:56 +0200
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 03:36 -0500
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 11:33 +0200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 05:02 -0500
              Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 12:42 +0200
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 14:35 +0200
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 17:03 +0200
                    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 21:10 +0200
                Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 09:46 -0700
                  Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 18:21 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 10:31 +1000
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-07-16 19:27 -0700
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 09:35 +0200
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 09:29 -0700
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:50 +1000
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 12:54 -0600
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 13:12 -0700
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 16:39 -0600
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 18:18 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 11:15 +0300
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 14:53 +0200
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:26 +0300
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-17 21:53 +0200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 23:46 +0300
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 03:35 -0500
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 14:11 +0300
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 04:21 -0700
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 13:51 +0200
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:20 +0300
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 21:34 +0200
            Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. rantingrick <rantingrick@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 13:22 -0700
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. gene heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2011-07-17 10:29 -0400
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-17 17:10 +0200
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Corey Richardson <kb1pkl@aim.com> - 2011-07-17 12:28 -0400
        Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2011-07-18 19:28 +0300
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thorsten Kampe <thorsten@thorstenkampe.de> - 2011-07-18 18:51 +0200
          Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2011-07-18 19:07 +0200
      Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. "Waldek M." <wm@localhost.localdomain> - 2011-07-17 21:39 +0200
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com> - 2011-07-17 22:28 +0300
    Re: Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won. gene heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2011-07-17 20:35 -0400

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →

#9762

From	Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com>
Date	2011-07-17 18:55 -0500
Message-ID	<mailman.1196.1310946970.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9761

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On 2011.07.17 06:29 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my mind that 
> we're still churning out people with 80 column minds.  I'm willing
> to entertain arguments about readability of long lines, but the idea 
> that there's something magic about 80 columns is hogwash.
I think the reason the idea isn't dead is because of the emergence of
new devices with small displays (tablets/smartphones/etc.) and their
increasing popularity. When writing code that is meant to be run on
desktops or servers, the 80-column limit is mostly irrelevant, but
Python running on these small devices, especially with Python code being
interpreted rather than compiled, it's convenient to edit code on those
platforms, where there is a significant column limit.

- -- 
CPython 3.2.1 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17592 | Thunderbird 5.0
PGP/GPG Public Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJOI3aPAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/LRMQH/irglKlq7+Nk67dvGuQt39ZH
nHqEE4HG5J7y/JfW+3g4UbhISHFwsJO0yvvcUN8cfLQ9O4KxzR65PS6Jqs8KEWS+
04hAZl0AbEKHZv3nOxWhxvAF5saJnq0xWHAtE9tFwS31I7Oh65rCBZD4g9BFiCql
YeTAklPB64Ik6F+7kcLDx3xDn6CPb/03Nj2assGatSUEY5p0OqzZ9nPnBxifLDFC
piOkZOgPW39s/zEzr+0LiD3ayFmtPoYldBFR0c7qkzyN6aS+Fur4kqbxlGl4jbI/
Xkms/5yrie/jAf4HgcaMHX2l4Or/dY7jyb6cK+How+yNa76xh6CZdxIZ68oR6Fs=
=K9SY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9763

From	Roy Smith <roy@panix.com>
Date	2011-07-17 20:28 -0400
Message-ID	<roy-FB2326.20284017072011@news.panix.com>
In reply to	#9762

In article <mailman.1196.1310946970.1164.python-list@python.org>,
 Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
> 
> On 2011.07.17 06:29 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> > We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my mind that 
> > we're still churning out people with 80 column minds.  I'm willing
> > to entertain arguments about readability of long lines, but the idea 
> > that there's something magic about 80 columns is hogwash.
> I think the reason the idea isn't dead is because of the emergence of
> new devices with small displays (tablets/smartphones/etc.) and their
> increasing popularity. When writing code that is meant to be run on
> desktops or servers, the 80-column limit is mostly irrelevant, but
> Python running on these small devices, especially with Python code being
> interpreted rather than compiled, it's convenient to edit code on those
> platforms, where there is a significant column limit.

Can you give me a more specific example?  I assume there's nobody (at 
least nobody sane) editing Python source code on iPhones.  I'll admit 
I'm not that familiar with the plethora of tablets and handheld devices 
out there.  Are there really devices which impose exactly an 80-column 
width?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9764

From	Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com>
Date	2011-07-17 19:48 -0500
Message-ID	<mailman.1197.1310950130.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9763

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

On 2011.07.17 07:28 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
> Can you give me a more specific example?  I assume there's nobody (at
>  least nobody sane) editing Python source code on iPhones.
I haven't done it myself, but there are plenty of Python projects out
there made for mobile devices, and I would imagine the convenience of
editing on the platform itself to test things immediately outweighs the
inconvenience of a small display and tiny keyboard.

> Are there really devices which impose exactly an 80-column width?
Font size can be changed, so it's not a matter of a fixed number of
characters, but rather how many characters can fit on such a small
display at a reasonable size. My guess is that 80 is pretty arbitrary
nowadays, but it's much easier to stick with 80 than debate over it,
especially when display sizes vary so greatly among these devices.

- -- 
CPython 3.2.1 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17592 | Thunderbird 5.0
PGP/GPG Public Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJOI4LnAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/L9s4H/1hZUtzSUEK3ZCs/+5SQk4dE
W7Au9Gv4rpNK6zmIRTmWkBeqUZdJHVXftQslnkvVr+pUMjz395YZbT3a2rAiaMje
IYq2HqKk8kZAeVo1sQLlKAl5PcCP8yJKGW1UJBLcLarXC33e/3pB1M7MY3QIVEta
S68IsBR5RJdtNIOJcmNtYEglPe1CSXt0LeEGYoseBhz9UyUDnnJlelu6WRAatKxR
jB8sbaWN4wLdT1iFkNFePSA1hJQSGmot0D5UaYTTG5HuG4JNlSeTZ23ctFLph/XG
96vndHBjxkDEdzCBkxSRaM5i5W/vSa/t25c5uDvXibldrxBWqm2QYJTeMhJ9JsY=
=6RXz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9765

From	Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com>
Date	2011-07-17 19:50 -0500
Message-ID	<mailman.1198.1310950271.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9763

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

I should also mention that this mostly speculation on my part, and that
I would love to hear from someone who develops for these devices.

- -- 
CPython 3.2.1 | Windows NT 6.1.7601.17592 | Thunderbird 5.0
PGP/GPG Public Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJOI4NvAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/LI8UH/3s+YyOsRGfHmcfX17glGUPT
bMAHq7vkmyWp5/zdcTWiRSxySrmTdcBJlquQOzUXhzGjRJlDoRQJrVypNr5zEO/r
FQkqwSnd0MmAg7wQX5I8xnM+muqeqOMvSqPs6HzBUiUqgwNoMlDn1v0Cc0h72mxx
Nf5r67/0Sptg7sR15aZnLtDodfql6qDxbIbDBdsp6SVnL6XE3l2NfFnB8DcOXRXk
2ooiV5/HlV0S2lr5TiKshyWuumQCnOPg6+ZDc//vev4L3aeM6EAXtYTWTWJEERl+
6PMP6u1SmA7P43jjzunxTiyXRkLLp7lJDaoWVzb3o+FDLOwNhgVEUH28TiXuNgQ=
=0HaP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9768

From	Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com>
Date	2011-07-17 21:06 -0400
Message-ID	<j000ts$ndg$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#9765

Andrew Berg wrote:
> I should also mention that this mostly speculation on my part, and that
> I would love to hear from someone who develops for these devices.

There's a mailing list for Python scripting on Android -- 
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/python-for-
android/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:python-for-
android+subscribe@googlegroups.com> 
. Tends to be pretty detail-oriented.

	Mel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9769

From	Mel <mwilson@the-wire.com>
Date	2011-07-17 21:06 -0400
Message-ID	<j000vg$nhr$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to	#9765

Andrew Berg wrote:
> I should also mention that this mostly speculation on my part, and that
> I would love to hear from someone who develops for these devices.

There's a mailing list for Python scripting on Android -- 
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/python-for-
android/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:python-for-
android+subscribe@googlegroups.com> 
. Tends to be pretty detail-oriented.

	Mel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9767

From	Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
Date	2011-07-18 11:01 +1000
Message-ID	<4e2385ea$0$29977$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#9761

Roy Smith wrote:

> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my mind that
> we're still churning out people with 80 column minds.  I'm willing to
> entertain arguments about readability of long lines, but the idea that
> there's something magic about 80 columns is hogwash.

I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns. 


-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9770

From	Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
Date	2011-07-18 11:12 +1000
Message-ID	<4e238886$0$29987$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#9767

Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
> 
>> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my mind that
>> we're still churning out people with 80 column minds.  I'm willing to
>> entertain arguments about readability of long lines, but the idea that
>> there's something magic about 80 columns is hogwash.
> 
> I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns.

Sorry, that looks like a troll, but isn't.

I seriously do set my editor to a soft limit of 78 characters. That is, I
can exceed it if I want, but almost never do.

Why 78? Because it's one less than 79, as mandated by PEP 8, and two less
than 80, the hoary old standard. The reasons given in PEP 8 for 79 make
sense to me, and I don't like reading really long lines of code. With one
exception, if your line of code needs more than 79 plus or minus 1
characters, chances are it is doing too much.

The exception is, you have an indented block of code, perhaps three or four
indents deep (surely you never allow anything to get beyond five or six
indents?), and you want to raise an exception:

                raise SomeExceptionType("and here's a rather long error"
                                        "message blah blah blah")

If I only go a character or two over, I might be tempted to just go over.
But normally I split the line, as above, and use implicit line
concatenation.

http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/

-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9772

From	Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au>
Date	2011-07-18 11:42 +1000
Message-ID	<878vrwtle3.fsf@benfinney.id.au>
In reply to	#9770

Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes:

> The exception is, you have an indented block of code, perhaps three or four
> indents deep (surely you never allow anything to get beyond five or six
> indents?), and you want to raise an exception:
>
>                 raise SomeExceptionType("and here's a rather long error"
>                                         "message blah blah blah")

Give yourself plenty more room, stay within PEP 8, *and* make the
alignment robust in the face of changes::

                raise SomeExceptionType(
                        "and here's a rather long error"
                        "message blah blah blah")

-- 
 \           “I have one rule to live by: Don't make it worse.” —Hazel |
  `\                                                          Woodcock |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9783

From	Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz>
Date	2011-07-18 18:26 +1200
Message-ID	<98i20hFo09U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#9770

Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> Why 78? Because it's one less than 79, as mandated by PEP 8, and two less
> than 80, the hoary old standard.

There's another possible reason for the number 78, although
hopefully it doesn't still apply today.

There's an application I work with that stores free text
in database records of 78 chars each. I suspect it's
because early versions go back to the MS-DOS era, when
it was common to make windows out of box-drawing characters.
80 columns minus two border chars equals 78!

-- 
Greg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9792

From	Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com>
Date	2011-07-18 05:52 -0500
Message-ID	<mailman.1209.1310986390.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9767

On 07/17/2011 08:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Roy Smith wrote:
>> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my
>> mind that we're still churning out people with 80 column
>> minds.  I'm willing to entertain arguments about readability
>> of long lines, but the idea that there's something magic
>> about 80 columns is hogwash.
>
> I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns.

Bah, when I started programming
on the Apple ][+, we had no
lower-case and a 40-column limit
on the TV display.
But you try and tell the young
people today that...
and they won't believe ya'.

-tkc

(expecting somebody to come back with a bit more retro-computing 
Four Yorkshiremen bit..."spinning 360k 5.25" floppy drives? We 
should be so lucky. I had to hand jump 2000-amp bits with only my 
tongue, for a CPU architecture invented by Navajo code-talkers...")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9805

From	Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid>
Date	2011-07-18 13:52 +0000
Message-ID	<Xns9F2695C6AAA73duncanbooth@127.0.0.1>
In reply to	#9792

Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> wrote:

> On 07/17/2011 08:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my
>>> mind that we're still churning out people with 80 column
>>> minds.  I'm willing to entertain arguments about readability
>>> of long lines, but the idea that there's something magic
>>> about 80 columns is hogwash.
>>
>> I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns.
> 
> Bah, when I started programming
> on the Apple ][+, we had no
> lower-case and a 40-column limit
> on the TV display.
> But you try and tell the young
> people today that...
> and they won't believe ya'.

Acorn System One: 9 character 7 segment led display and 25 key keypad, 1Kb  
RAM, 512 bytes ROM.

-- 
Duncan Booth http://kupuguy.blogspot.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9816

From	MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com>
Date	2011-07-18 17:59 +0100
Message-ID	<mailman.1220.1311008383.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9805

On 18/07/2011 14:52, Duncan Booth wrote:
> Tim Chase<python.list@tim.thechases.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 07/17/2011 08:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>>> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my
>>>> mind that we're still churning out people with 80 column
>>>> minds.  I'm willing to entertain arguments about readability
>>>> of long lines, but the idea that there's something magic
>>>> about 80 columns is hogwash.
>>>
>>> I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns.
>>
>> Bah, when I started programming
>> on the Apple ][+, we had no
>> lower-case and a 40-column limit
>> on the TV display.
>> But you try and tell the young
>> people today that...
>> and they won't believe ya'.
>
> Acorn System One: 9 character 7 segment led display and 25 key keypad, 1Kb
> RAM, 512 bytes ROM.
>
1KB RAM? Wow!

Science of Cambridge Mk14, with extra RAM and I/O chip, total of 640
bytes (some reserved for monitor program).

Main RAM at 0xF00..0xFFF, extra RAM at 0xB00..0xBFF, I/O RAM somewhere
else...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9840

From	Roy Smith <roy@panix.com>
Date	2011-07-18 19:07 -0400
Message-ID	<roy-178963.19072818072011@news.panix.com>
In reply to	#9805

In article <Xns9F2695C6AAA73duncanbooth@127.0.0.1>,
 Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 07/17/2011 08:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> >> Roy Smith wrote:
> >>> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my
> >>> mind that we're still churning out people with 80 column
> >>> minds.  I'm willing to entertain arguments about readability
> >>> of long lines, but the idea that there's something magic
> >>> about 80 columns is hogwash.
> >>
> >> I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns.
> > 
> > Bah, when I started programming
> > on the Apple ][+, we had no
> > lower-case and a 40-column limit
> > on the TV display.
> > But you try and tell the young
> > people today that...
> > and they won't believe ya'.
> 
> Acorn System One: 9 character 7 segment led display and 25 key keypad, 1Kb  
> RAM, 512 bytes ROM.

HP-9810.  http://www.hpmuseum.org/98xx/9810n3qs.jpg.

BTW, if anybody has one of these in working condition that they want to 
get rid of, let me know.  I'd love to play with one again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9807

From	Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>
Date	2011-07-19 00:59 +1000
Message-ID	<4e244a67$0$29983$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com>
In reply to	#9792

Tim Chase wrote:

> On 07/17/2011 08:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my
>>> mind that we're still churning out people with 80 column
>>> minds.  I'm willing to entertain arguments about readability
>>> of long lines, but the idea that there's something magic
>>> about 80 columns is hogwash.
>>
>> I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns.
> 
> Bah, when I started programming
> on the Apple ][+, we had no
> lower-case and a 40-column limit
> on the TV display.
> But you try and tell the young
> people today that...
> and they won't believe ya'.

40 columns? Luxury! My first computer was a Hewlett Packard 28S handheld
programmable calculator, with 22 columns[1] and 32 entire kilobytes of
memory!

(I don't include my previous programmable calculator, a Casio, or was it a
Canon, as the programming language included wasn't Turing Complete.)



[1] I think it was 22 columns -- that's what my HP 48GX has, and I'm sure
the 28S screen was no larger.

-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9819

From	Dave Angel <davea@ieee.org>
Date	2011-07-18 13:11 -0400
Message-ID	<mailman.1221.1311009110.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9807

On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> Tim Chase wrote:
>
>> On 07/17/2011 08:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>>> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my
>>>> mind that we're still churning out people with 80 column
>>>> minds.  I'm willing to entertain arguments about readability
>>>> of long lines, but the idea that there's something magic
>>>> about 80 columns is hogwash.
>>> I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns.
>> Bah, when I started programming
>> on the Apple ][+, we had no
>> lower-case and a 40-column limit
>> on the TV display.
>> But you try and tell the young
>> people today that...
>> and they won't believe ya'.
> 40 columns? Luxury! My first computer was a Hewlett Packard 28S handheld
> programmable calculator, with 22 columns[1] and 32 entire kilobytes of
> memory!
>
> (I don't include my previous programmable calculator, a Casio, or was it a
> Canon, as the programming language included wasn't Turing Complete.)
>
>
>
> [1] I think it was 22 columns -- that's what my HP 48GX has, and I'm sure
> the 28S screen was no larger.
>
My first programmable calculator had 1.5k of RAM, display was 13 digits 
wide, and it took an optional 2k of PROM via a plugin socket on top.  I 
wrote a commercially sold navigation program for that calculator.  The 
program was used on ships in 1974 and later.  Later I squeezed the code 
a bit and made room for a dead reckoning program and great circle 
calculator.

I didn't write a cross assembler for it till after this project was 
finished.  That assembler ran on a machine with 64 column display.

DaveA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9797

From	python@bdurham.com
Date	2011-07-18 08:33 -0400
Message-ID	<mailman.1212.1310992438.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9767

> Bah, when I started programming
> on the Apple ][+, we had no
> lower-case and a 40-column limit
> on the TV display.

Keyboards??? That was a luxery!
We had mechanical switches that one
had to physically push and pull to
enter commands.

And a 40 column display???
Unheard of! We were happy with
several miniature flashlight bulbs!

But you try and tell the young
people today that...
and they won't believe ya'.

Fond memories!

Malcolm

Ref:

http://totallytrygve.com/computer.php?item=188&picture=0
http://www.logikus.info/english.htm
http://oldcomputermuseum.com/logix_kosmos.html
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctech/2007-October/086682.html
http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/accession/102621921
http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/ (scanned manual)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9811

From	gene heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com>
Date	2011-07-18 10:12 -0400
Message-ID	<mailman.1219.1311004277.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9767

On Monday, July 18, 2011 09:32:19 AM Tim Chase did opine:

> On 07/17/2011 08:01 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> > Roy Smith wrote:
> >> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my
> >> mind that we're still churning out people with 80 column
> >> minds.  I'm willing to entertain arguments about readability
> >> of long lines, but the idea that there's something magic
> >> about 80 columns is hogwash.
> > 
> > I agree! Which is why I set my line width to 78 columns.
> 
> Bah, when I started programming
> on the Apple ][+, we had no
> lower-case and a 40-column limit
> on the TV display.
> But you try and tell the young
> people today that...
> and they won't believe ya'.
> 
> -tkc
> 
> (expecting somebody to come back with a bit more retro-computing
> Four Yorkshiremen bit..."spinning 360k 5.25" floppy drives? We
> should be so lucky. I had to hand jump 2000-amp bits with only my
> tongue, for a CPU architecture invented by Navajo code-talkers...")

No, but my first computer was an RCA Cosmac Super Elf, with a 6 digit led 
display.  I added another 4k of static ram ($400 for the s100 board kit, 
and about $100 for the S-100 4 slot backplane, and about $125 for a cash 
register style cabinet that I hid the rest of the hardware, including a 6 
volt gell cell for backup battery in)  This had an RCA 1802 CPU which had a 
very interesting architecture.

Writing, in machine code entered through its monitor, a program that drove 
the rest of the hardware and connected to the remote controls of the U-
Matic tape machines of the day, including the display hardware I built from 
scratch with mostly TTL parts, it was replacing the most labor intensive 
step in preparing a commercial for use with an Automatic station break 
machine by applying a new frame accurate academy leader and the tones to 
control it directly to the finished commercial tape.  That automated a very 
timing critical step, and removed a dub cycle from commercial production at 
KRCR in 1979, and was still in use in 1994 the last time I checked.  How 
many of our code projects can make that claim?

I still have a paper copy of the code in a bag on the top shelf.

Interesting sidelight here.  In 1980, Microtime brought a much more 
primative device to do that to the NAB show, which I stopped and looked at, 
and when I could control my laughing, said I had already done that, 
functionally far better than this attempt.  Since they are as lawyer top 
loaded as Apple, I guess they assumed I had also copyrighted and patented 
it, so it was gone the next day & they wouldn't even admit they had had it 
the day before.

In 1987 I made a better version of the EDISK that Grass Valley sold as an 
accessory for the 300 series video production switchers, for $20,000.  
Theirs had a 2 digit display for file names & ran at 1200 baud.
Mine had a whopping 32 column display and english filenames and ran at 4800 
baud, running on a TRS-80 Color Computer, I had $245 in the hardware.  It 
was still in use when I retired in 2002, but when that forced a replacement 
of the 300 because of custom parts availability, the new CE gave me back 
the old machine.  I still have it, and several more of them.  The 6809 was 
not the crippled, drain bamaged processor the 6502 was.

OS-9, the color computers multiuser/multitasking OS, has now grown to also 
execute on the hitachi 6309 cpu chip, and is about 2x faster now than then, 
and we now call it Nitros9.  That is essentially todays linux, running on 
an 8 bit bus, and was my teacher, causing me to only have one legal winderz 
install in the house ever as it was on the laptop (XP) I bought quite a few 
years back now.  Long since history, that machine has had linux on it for 
about 6 years now.

FWIW, I met one of the code talkers when I was the CE at KIVA-TV in the 
late 70's.  That was another example of how we have screwed the "First 
Americans' and I had better not get started.

Cheers, gene
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Beneath this stone lies Murphy,
They buried him today,
He lived the life of Riley,
While Riley was away.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9790

From	tinnews@isbd.co.uk
Date	2011-07-18 10:49 +0100
Message-ID	<c5cdf8-3l4.ln1@chris.zbmc.eu>
In reply to	#9761

Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <mailman.1190.1310940173.1164.python-list@python.org>,
>  Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > the line width mandate [...] exists so that people using 80-column editors can open up
> > code without having line-wrapping problems.
> 
> Heh.  I don't know how many other people on this group grew up with the 
> original(*) 80-column editor (http://tinyurl.com/3sj4mzb), but I did.  
> Unlike, well, any editor anybody is likely to use today, it was really, 
> really hard to make the window wider if you had to.
> 
> We don't have that problem any more.  It truly boggles my mind that 
> we're still churning out people with 80 column minds.  I'm willing to 
> entertain arguments about readability of long lines, but the idea that 
> there's something magic about 80 columns is hogwash.
> 
The reason for an 80 column limit is not fundamentally down to screen
width (as was) it's that our eyes find it much easier to follow lines
with a limited length and 80 columns is somewhere around the right
line length to keep things easily readable.

-- 
Chris Green

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#9824

From	Dotan Cohen <dotancohen@gmail.com>
Date	2011-07-18 21:51 +0300
Message-ID	<mailman.1225.1311015110.1164.python-list@python.org>
In reply to	#9761

On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 02:55, Andrew Berg > I think the reason the
idea isn't dead is because of the emergence of
> new devices with small displays (tablets/smartphones/etc.) and their
> increasing popularity. When writing code that is meant to be run on
> desktops or servers, the 80-column limit is mostly irrelevant, but
> Python running on these small devices, especially with Python code being
> interpreted rather than compiled, it's convenient to edit code on those
> platforms, where there is a significant column limit.
>

Let me see if I understand: because there exists a possibility that
someone might want (not need) to edit code on a telephone to make a
quick edit to code being interpreted on that machine, _all_ Python
code should limit itself to a line width that may or may not wrap on a
telephone screen?

Is that the argument in favor of an 80-character line width?

-- 
Dotan Cohen

http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →

csiph-web

Tabs -vs- Spaces: Tabs should have won.

Contents

#9762

#9763

#9764

#9765

#9768

#9769

#9767

#9770

#9772

#9783

#9792

#9805

#9816

#9840

#9807

#9819

#9797

#9811

#9790

#9824