3 ms·

Right, I can fit 2x100 cols, or 3x80 cols + a project view. So I can see my code, its tests, and either the shell (i.e. test results, ipython, debugger, tail -f

by sago 11y ago

Right, I can fit 2x100 cols, or 3x80 cols + a project view. So I can see my code, its tests, and either the shell (i.e. test results, ipython, debugger, tail -f logfile) or a web browser for documentation. Is that junk? How many of your lines require that 100 columns, in your average code? Of course, this can just descend into a pissing contest. The point isn't who-has-the-most-windows, but that the logic of 80cols has a practical point, and programmers who continue with the default have reasons that aren't just about teletype or not moving with the times.

coldtea 11y ago
>* So I can see my code, its tests, and either the shell (i.e. test results, ipython, debugger, tail -f logfile) or a web browser for documentation.* Did someone stole the lower part of your screen? Or do you have all views in parallel, instead of say stacked vertically?
- sago 11y ago
  I could cut half of my editors off, of course. But then I'm loosing even more context. And I have a shell output that is full width but not very tall, so I can't see as much context, and I have to scroll my code more. Again, this isn't a pissing contest. The point is that there are reasons people prefer it. What are you trying to argue? It seemed you were trying to suggest it is purely a historic throwback and pointless. It all comes back to this question: what proportion of lines in your code use more than 80 cols? If it is a small proportion, the geometry is simple: you waste more screen by having longer lines.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >It all comes back to this question: what proportion of lines in your code use more than 80 cols? If it is a small proportion, the geometry is simple: you waste more screen by having longer lines. It's obviously always gonna be a small proportion. Nobody write > 80 lines all the time (or should). But just because you accept > 80 lines doesn't mean you have to have the editor to > 80 width. You can just let it either wrap them or cut some lines off and scroll when you want to check them (what I do). I don't buy that somehow this "80 characters per page" is some magic number that holds true from the teletype days to today, and it should be respected regardless of font size, monitor width, etc.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - sago 11y ago
      > it should be respected regardless of font size, monitor width, etc. I don't think anyone would suggest it is magic. It is a convention that is somewhere near to being good, and is so widely used that it is heavily tool supported, so you should have a good reason not to use it. Actually, 80 is a bit of a misnomer, PEP8 has it at 79, git convention is 72 (50 for first line, to allow git log to display sha-summary inline and fit into 80 cols), etc. > You can just let it either wrap them or cut some lines off and scroll when you want to check them (what I do). Ah, I see. In which case I take back many of my objections. I see what you're saying now. Thanks.

by sago 11y ago

coldtea 11y ago

>* So I can see my code, its tests, and either the shell (i.e. test results, ipython, debugger, tail -f logfile) or a web browser for documentation.* Did someone stole the lower part of your screen? Or do you have all views in parallel, instead of say stacked vertically?

sago 11y ago
I could cut half of my editors off, of course. But then I'm loosing even more context. And I have a shell output that is full width but not very tall, so I can't see as much context, and I have to scroll my code more. Again, this isn't a pissing contest. The point is that there are reasons people prefer it. What are you trying to argue? It seemed you were trying to suggest it is purely a historic throwback and pointless. It all comes back to this question: what proportion of lines in your code use more than 80 cols? If it is a small proportion, the geometry is simple: you waste more screen by having longer lines.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >It all comes back to this question: what proportion of lines in your code use more than 80 cols? If it is a small proportion, the geometry is simple: you waste more screen by having longer lines. It's obviously always gonna be a small proportion. Nobody write > 80 lines all the time (or should). But just because you accept > 80 lines doesn't mean you have to have the editor to > 80 width. You can just let it either wrap them or cut some lines off and scroll when you want to check them (what I do). I don't buy that somehow this "80 characters per page" is some magic number that holds true from the teletype days to today, and it should be respected regardless of font size, monitor width, etc.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - sago 11y ago
    > it should be respected regardless of font size, monitor width, etc. I don't think anyone would suggest it is magic. It is a convention that is somewhere near to being good, and is so widely used that it is heavily tool supported, so you should have a good reason not to use it. Actually, 80 is a bit of a misnomer, PEP8 has it at 79, git convention is 72 (50 for first line, to allow git log to display sha-summary inline and fit into 80 cols), etc. > You can just let it either wrap them or cut some lines off and scroll when you want to check them (what I do). Ah, I see. In which case I take back many of my objections. I see what you're saying now. Thanks.