9 ms·

After 30+ years of XGA and higher I've forgotten what coding on an 80x25 terminal felt like. Cramped. The answer is "cramped".

rbanffy 6y ago
It depends on the language. Modern languages feel like that because they evolved on high resolution workstation screens with GUIs that could use smaller fonts. You can do 132x50 on most SVGA cards, but you’ll want a bigger screen for that (and the fonts will be ugly 8x8 or 6x8 ones). Writing BASIC on 80x25 feels constrained, but 80x35 is much better. Java would be a lot more concise if it was designed with VT-100s in mind.
- swiley 6y ago
  C# feels cramped unless you have huge desktop monitors.
  - sedatk 6y ago
    Luckily, that’s changing. C# 10 is converting namespace blocks into directives like Java. That means one fewer indent.
    - zorked 6y ago
      Do people indent namespaces in C#? In C++ it's common practice to not indent.
      - sedatk 6y ago
        Yes, it's traditional with C# to indent every multi-line block. There are teams and individuals who opt for some exceptions (like switch/case), but none of them are universally adopted. I haven't seen a single example over the last two decades where namespaces aren't indented. The defaults go a long way.
- kjs3 6y ago
  Ya...bog standard VGA can do 80x50; VESA SVGA can do 132x50 (or more, I think). I seemed to remember 8514/XGA had something like a 132x50 mode with decently readable fonts (8x16?), but I can't find a reference. 132x50 + tmux/screen is pretty usable. You could also plug in a Hercules mono card and get a 2-monitor setup, if you had software that could grok it. The color and mono video memory lived in different, non-overlapping memory regions. Couple of shops (Xerox. Amdek? Moniterm?) had 1280x800 monochrome setups that could be a second monitor like this. Those were pretty sweet.
  - rbanffy 6y ago
    I remember I did a lot of BASIC on 40x24. At some point I got myself a Videx 80-column card and could do graphics on the attached TV and crisp 80x24 on a green screen.
- SavantIdiot 6y ago
  I worked with a guy in the early 1990's that wrote a chipset simulator for evaluating IO/RAM tuning in C++. He was extremely verbose, which was nice to a point: he exceeded the Turbo C++ limit for 256-character max variable names. Needless to say his code did not print nicely into 80 columns.
bluedino 6y ago
80x43 seemed world-changing to me on a 286 with a 14" monitor. 80x50 was a bit squished.
- SavantIdiot 6y ago
  I came from 40 column Apple //e and had to pr#3 to active my 80 column card. And let's not talk about the 280x192 HGR2 graphics, almost as painful as CGA, except that was at least linearly addressed!
tyingq 6y ago
132 column mode was pretty common on old terminals, and not too terrible if you had a 12+ inch CRT. Typically, still 24 rows though.
- sedatk 6y ago
  Not on PC though.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    It was available, but quirky and sometimes app specific. I do remember running Wordstar in 132 columns and some TSR to have DOS in 132 columns. There was "MODE CON COLS=132 LINES=50" also.
    - sedatk 6y ago
      That's interesting, I haven't seen that. I don't think MODE CON magically changed text mode resolution beyond 80 or 40 cols either. It was mostly about having proper line wraps with INT 21h output, IIRC.
      - kjs3 6y ago
        If you're talking MS-DOS, 132 column mode was very common on apps where it made sense (wordstar, visicalc), but was usually invoked with an app-specific driver of some sort, not BIOS calls.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    SVGATextMode could make these available, depending on your video card. With modern kernels, the text mode can be set on boot.
- SavantIdiot 6y ago
  Really? I started college using VT100s in the lab to access the mainframe, and 80 columns was taxing enough to stare at hours on end. Can't imagine a 65% increase in horizontal density!

rbanffy 6y ago

It depends on the language. Modern languages feel like that because they evolved on high resolution workstation screens with GUIs that could use smaller fonts. You can do 132x50 on most SVGA cards, but you’ll want a bigger screen for that (and the fonts will be ugly 8x8 or 6x8 ones). Writing BASIC on 80x25 feels constrained, but 80x35 is much better. Java would be a lot more concise if it was designed with VT-100s in mind.

swiley 6y ago
C# feels cramped unless you have huge desktop monitors.
- sedatk 6y ago
  Luckily, that’s changing. C# 10 is converting namespace blocks into directives like Java. That means one fewer indent.
  - zorked 6y ago
    Do people indent namespaces in C#? In C++ it's common practice to not indent.
    - sedatk 6y ago
      Yes, it's traditional with C# to indent every multi-line block. There are teams and individuals who opt for some exceptions (like switch/case), but none of them are universally adopted. I haven't seen a single example over the last two decades where namespaces aren't indented. The defaults go a long way.
kjs3 6y ago
Ya...bog standard VGA can do 80x50; VESA SVGA can do 132x50 (or more, I think). I seemed to remember 8514/XGA had something like a 132x50 mode with decently readable fonts (8x16?), but I can't find a reference. 132x50 + tmux/screen is pretty usable. You could also plug in a Hercules mono card and get a 2-monitor setup, if you had software that could grok it. The color and mono video memory lived in different, non-overlapping memory regions. Couple of shops (Xerox. Amdek? Moniterm?) had 1280x800 monochrome setups that could be a second monitor like this. Those were pretty sweet.
- rbanffy 6y ago
  I remember I did a lot of BASIC on 40x24. At some point I got myself a Videx 80-column card and could do graphics on the attached TV and crisp 80x24 on a green screen.
SavantIdiot 6y ago
I worked with a guy in the early 1990's that wrote a chipset simulator for evaluating IO/RAM tuning in C++. He was extremely verbose, which was nice to a point: he exceeded the Turbo C++ limit for 256-character max variable names. Needless to say his code did not print nicely into 80 columns.

bluedino 6y ago

80x43 seemed world-changing to me on a 286 with a 14" monitor. 80x50 was a bit squished.

SavantIdiot 6y ago
I came from 40 column Apple //e and had to pr#3 to active my 80 column card. And let's not talk about the 280x192 HGR2 graphics, almost as painful as CGA, except that was at least linearly addressed!

tyingq 6y ago

132 column mode was pretty common on old terminals, and not too terrible if you had a 12+ inch CRT. Typically, still 24 rows though.

sedatk 6y ago
Not on PC though.
- tyingq 6y ago
  It was available, but quirky and sometimes app specific. I do remember running Wordstar in 132 columns and some TSR to have DOS in 132 columns. There was "MODE CON COLS=132 LINES=50" also.
  - sedatk 6y ago
    That's interesting, I haven't seen that. I don't think MODE CON magically changed text mode resolution beyond 80 or 40 cols either. It was mostly about having proper line wraps with INT 21h output, IIRC.
    - kjs3 6y ago
      If you're talking MS-DOS, 132 column mode was very common on apps where it made sense (wordstar, visicalc), but was usually invoked with an app-specific driver of some sort, not BIOS calls.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  SVGATextMode could make these available, depending on your video card. With modern kernels, the text mode can be set on boot.
SavantIdiot 6y ago
Really? I started college using VT100s in the lab to access the mainframe, and 80 columns was taxing enough to stare at hours on end. Can't imagine a 65% increase in horizontal density!