4 ms·

> There is no excuse for hard-wrapping text. How else are you going to write a poem, or an address, in a text file? > if you hard-wrap your text to 80 charact

> There is no excuse for hard-wrapping text. How else are you going to write a poem, or an address, in a text file? > if you hard-wrap your text to 80 characters, and someone has a window that fits 100 characters at their desired text size - you're wasting 20% of their screen space. No. Long text lines are unreadable. Hard-wrapping text at 60 or 70 characters is perfectly appropriate and does not waste anybody's screen space. I'd go further and say that publishing or sending non-hard-wrapped text files is terrible bad taste. Wraps are part of the content and should not be messed with. You'll take hard wraps from my cold, dead hands.

throw10920 2y ago
> How else are you going to write a poem, or an address, in a text file? You don't understand what "hard-wrapping text" is, then, because neither of those things involve hard-wrapping in the sense that we're discussing. Hard-wrapping (in the context that we're clearly using it) is where you add a newline in the middle of content to manually fit it to a terminal window or some other container. In poems or addresses, the newline is part of the formatting, just like when you're writing two paragraphs you separate them with a newline. That's categorically different than the hard-wrapping being discussed anywhere in this thread, where non-content linebreaks are being added to fit a specific width. You may want to re-read the surrounding comments, because you clearly missed something. > No. This is factually incorrect, because my statement "if you hard-wrap your text to 80 characters, and someone has a window that fits 100 characters at their desired text size - you're wasting 20% of their screen space." is factually correct. You are wasting their screen space. > Long text lines are unreadable. That's why we have soft-wrapping. Are you using a computer from the past few decades? All of them have the ability to soft-wrap text. > Hard-wrapping text at 60 or 70 characters is perfectly appropriate and does not waste anybody's screen space. Factually incorrect. If you hard-wrap at 60 characters and someone has a viewport that's 59 characters, then you waste close to 50% of their screen space due to the overflow and cause massive viewing headaches. If you hard-wrap at 60 characters and someone has a viewport that's 120 characters (which is a very reasonable value - mine is 173 normally or 147 on a bad-eyes day), you also waste 50% of their screen space. This is not an opinion - this is a fact. You should stop saying things that are objectively false, and especially advocating for harmful practices based on them.

throw10920 2y ago

> How else are you going to write a poem, or an address, in a text file? You don't understand what "hard-wrapping text" is, then, because neither of those things involve hard-wrapping in the sense that we're discussing. Hard-wrapping (in the context that we're clearly using it) is where you add a newline in the middle of content to manually fit it to a terminal window or some other container. In poems or addresses, the newline is part of the formatting, just like when you're writing two paragraphs you separate them with a newline. That's categorically different than the hard-wrapping being discussed anywhere in this thread, where non-content linebreaks are being added to fit a specific width. You may want to re-read the surrounding comments, because you clearly missed something. > No. This is factually incorrect, because my statement "if you hard-wrap your text to 80 characters, and someone has a window that fits 100 characters at their desired text size - you're wasting 20% of their screen space." is factually correct. You are wasting their screen space. > Long text lines are unreadable. That's why we have soft-wrapping. Are you using a computer from the past few decades? All of them have the ability to soft-wrap text. > Hard-wrapping text at 60 or 70 characters is perfectly appropriate and does not waste anybody's screen space. Factually incorrect. If you hard-wrap at 60 characters and someone has a viewport that's 59 characters, then you waste close to 50% of their screen space due to the overflow and cause massive viewing headaches. If you hard-wrap at 60 characters and someone has a viewport that's 120 characters (which is a very reasonable value - mine is 173 normally or 147 on a bad-eyes day), you also waste 50% of their screen space. This is not an opinion - this is a fact. You should stop saying things that are objectively false, and especially advocating for harmful practices based on them.