5 ms·
'Stuck with'? I don't think we're stuck with anything. I think 80 cols is a very practical width. Most lines in code that is well structured and simple are les
by sago 11y ago
'Stuck with'? I don't think we're stuck with anything. I think 80 cols is a very practical width.
Most lines in code that is well structured and simple are less than 80 cols wide. Lines that require more than that can be broken. I think in 20 years of Python I've only seen a couple of cases where there wasn't an obvious semantic break point, most of the time such breaks are easy to place at logical points.
When you have 80 cols you have more code in your window. You can use the resolution to have taller windows and more windows side-by-side. 1920 pixels gives you nicely 3x80 col editors. Which allows you to look at the code, and its tests, and the shell at the same time, for example.
- jakeogh 11y ago"1920 pixels gives you nicely 3x80 col editors" Depending on your font. I use 1920 (-Misc-Fixed-Medium-R-SemiCondensed--13-120-75-75-C-60-ISO10646-1), and I get almost 4x80 col's, 3x96 works nice.
- sago 11y agoRight, I have a pair of 1920s portrait so I can have more drops on my desktop, but on my 17inch MBP, more than 3 drops is too small for my middle-aged eyes. As the commenter above stated, he found considerably less than 1% of his lines required > 80 cols, so rather than go 96 cols and have 17% of my screen real estate wasted, I'll have the extra column of code or documentation or tests, or output, and have to toggle less.