4 ms·
> You are repeating an argument you read somewhere, not actually something you believe. I think I am a better judge of my beliefs than you are. > No-one sizes
by eadmund 4y ago
> You are repeating an argument you read somewhere, not actually something you believe.
I think I am a better judge of my beliefs than you are.
> No-one sizes their terminals to 80chars.
Mine open at 24×80, although to be honest I normally tile them instead. And I much prefer code formatted to be 80 chars wide, with functions that fit within a page or two of text.
- sly010 4y ago> And I much prefer code formatted to be 80 chars wide, with functions that fit within a page or two of text. Wouldn't you agree that largely depends on the code in question? Of course I also "prefer" shorter lines in general, but that relationship is somewhat linear: 81 is not infinitely worse than 80. If the function in question would be more readable with just 1-2 lines that happens to be 83 chars, wouldn't you opt for that over placing some arbitrary closing bracket on the next line? Whether a code is more readable (for a human) should really not be decided by an arbitrary technical limit from 50 years ago. We have code reviews for that. btw, as far as I know the linux kernel has a _recommended_ 100 char maximum now.
- skirmish 4y agoAnd then you get Go readability reviewers enforcing a single letter (!) variable names so that everything fits in 80 columns. Do you prefer that?