3 ms·
This!! At <current_company> people are insisting we use a max of 80 columns for the linter. It's a huge pain compared to 100 or 130 columns and doesn't help rea
by winrid 6y ago
This!! At <current_company> people are insisting we use a max of 80 columns for the linter. It's a huge pain compared to 100 or 130 columns and doesn't help readability.
Everytime someone tries to argue for it I want to suggest we swap their Mac for a Commodore 64...
- u801e 6y agoWell, the C64 had a 40 column display width for the BASIC interpreter, but I think it was possible to have statements that wrapped and could go up to 80 characters (I may be wrong about that though).
- winrid 6y agoThe more you know! Thanks.
- saalweachter 6y agoThe VT100 is commonly considered the origin of the standard terminal size, although I've seen pedantic historians take it several steps further and sideways.
- ken 6y agoUp to 79 characters, including the line number. Interestingly, this was basically (ha) an editor limitation, not a language one. You could use 2-letter abbreviations for the language's reserved words to cram more code into the same space. The programs were stored (IIRC) in tokenized form.
- krallja 6y ago80 columns on a C64 is a real reach. You need special hardware (or horribly slow & fuzzy text) for that.
- u801e 6y agoThe C128 did have a 80 character mode[1]. [1] https://www.c64-wiki.com/wiki/Commodore_128 https://www.c64-wiki.com/wiki/Commodore_128