4 ms·

> So many people will now joke and say something about wide screens being available And this is a silly point because I want to be able to put 2-3 files side-b

by veltas 2y ago

> So many people will now joke and say something about wide screens being available And this is a silly point because I want to be able to put 2-3 files side-by-side, on that big monitor. Who are all these people asking for long code that means I don't get more than one file on screen at a time?

Arch-TK 2y ago
It's not even just that. The reason newspapers have multiple columns rather than lengthy lines is because it's strictly easier to read shorter lines.
- timhh 2y ago
  I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but 80 characters is clearly waaay too restrictive. I think 120 is much more reasonable.
  - dspillett 2y ago
    As the article states: > The question could possibly be exactly where to draw the limit, and that’s a debate for every project to have. It is subjective, and does not live in a vacuum because along with purely subjective preference regarding it on its own, it affects, and is affected by, other choices like naming and indentation conventions. They like 80 in their project. Feel free to choose something else for your project.
  - Arch-TK 2y ago
    Clearly to whom? I think it works fine in C with 8 spaces per indent level. It works fine in python and rust with 4 spaces per indent level. For some languages I think it's worth going down to 3 spaces per indent level. But I've not hit that many languages where it's worth going much past 80 characters.
  - johnisgood 2y ago
    I use either 2 spaces or tab for indentation for most languages, and I never go beyond 80 (actually, 79). It works well for XTerm, and most utilities that I use. For git commits, I do not go beyond ~69 characters per line, so it looks neat when I am viewing the commit history. 120 characters may be fine if I only care about coding in VSCodium, for example, so sometimes I might go above the 80 column width when I am programming Go using VSCodium, but I try to not do that, because I still use "less" and whatnot, plus I have an old 17" monitor. I do not like wide monitors, I want to be able to look at the whole screen all at once, with wide monitors I would either have to be too far away, or move my head / neck / eyes too often. So... my fonts are small, I limit to 80 column width, and I am quite happy with it. :P To each their own, although I would have issues with Java code that not only requires me to have many files open, I would have to switch back and forth files, and I would have to horizontally scroll a lot. I hope you realize what I am trying to say, if not, I will elaborate.
dspillett 2y ago
There are many, usually non-technical people though some devs & such too, who maximise everything then complain about how much space is wasted on the right of their fancy screen. I have a 32" screen running at "standard" pixel pitch (matching the 24" 1080p screen I have in portrait next to it) which I sometimes use full-screen but usually have split 50/50, 33/66, 25/75, or 33/33/33, depending on what I'm doing. One of our testers doesn't understand, can't see benefit I get from the flexibility ("why not just have two monitors?" has been asked several times). It seems to actively annoy her that such a wide screen exists. If she ever saw the ultra-wide my friend uses for gaming I think she'd have a seizure. Admittedly when sat this monitor plus the other in portrait is in total a bit wide (so the other screen is usually relegated to just being mail/chat windows that I only interact with when something pings for my attention) and a touch too tall. It is much more comfortable when I use the desk raised so I stand, which is how I work >⅔ of the time.

by veltas 2y ago

Arch-TK 2y ago

It's not even just that. The reason newspapers have multiple columns rather than lengthy lines is because it's strictly easier to read shorter lines.

timhh 2y ago
I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but 80 characters is clearly waaay too restrictive. I think 120 is much more reasonable.
- dspillett 2y ago
  As the article states: > The question could possibly be exactly where to draw the limit, and that’s a debate for every project to have. It is subjective, and does not live in a vacuum because along with purely subjective preference regarding it on its own, it affects, and is affected by, other choices like naming and indentation conventions. They like 80 in their project. Feel free to choose something else for your project.
- Arch-TK 2y ago
  Clearly to whom? I think it works fine in C with 8 spaces per indent level. It works fine in python and rust with 4 spaces per indent level. For some languages I think it's worth going down to 3 spaces per indent level. But I've not hit that many languages where it's worth going much past 80 characters.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  I use either 2 spaces or tab for indentation for most languages, and I never go beyond 80 (actually, 79). It works well for XTerm, and most utilities that I use. For git commits, I do not go beyond ~69 characters per line, so it looks neat when I am viewing the commit history. 120 characters may be fine if I only care about coding in VSCodium, for example, so sometimes I might go above the 80 column width when I am programming Go using VSCodium, but I try to not do that, because I still use "less" and whatnot, plus I have an old 17" monitor. I do not like wide monitors, I want to be able to look at the whole screen all at once, with wide monitors I would either have to be too far away, or move my head / neck / eyes too often. So... my fonts are small, I limit to 80 column width, and I am quite happy with it. :P To each their own, although I would have issues with Java code that not only requires me to have many files open, I would have to switch back and forth files, and I would have to horizontally scroll a lot. I hope you realize what I am trying to say, if not, I will elaborate.

dspillett 2y ago

There are many, usually non-technical people though some devs & such too, who maximise everything then complain about how much space is wasted on the right of their fancy screen. I have a 32" screen running at "standard" pixel pitch (matching the 24" 1080p screen I have in portrait next to it) which I sometimes use full-screen but usually have split 50/50, 33/66, 25/75, or 33/33/33, depending on what I'm doing. One of our testers doesn't understand, can't see benefit I get from the flexibility ("why not just have two monitors?" has been asked several times). It seems to actively annoy her that such a wide screen exists. If she ever saw the ultra-wide my friend uses for gaming I think she'd have a seizure. Admittedly when sat this monitor plus the other in portrait is in total a bit wide (so the other screen is usually relegated to just being mail/chat windows that I only interact with when something pings for my attention) and a touch too tall. It is much more comfortable when I use the desk raised so I stand, which is how I work >⅔ of the time.