so Wrote: > > I think that putting an artificial limit is incredibly stupid. Haven't > > anyone here learned the "No magic numbers" rule?!?! > > > > Walter correctly pointed out that it's harder to read long rows, > > however, unlike printed text and ancient terminals, current display > > technology is much more dynamic. > > Font size, zoom level, screen form-factor, window size, resolution, etc > > means that each person can configure his own individual optimal view. > > > > As the OP said, use word wrap and adjust your editor window width/font > > size/zoom level/etc to your liking. > > If your editor does not support this "new" feature, go get a new editor > > and don't bother other people with different preferences. > > Stop forcing this moronic "one size fits all" attitude on everyone. > > I agree, but i guess they are talking about standard library.
Right, so does that mean it should be made _less_ readable by a diverse community of people? I have no issue with any style Andrei or others use when they code for themselves, be it 10 characters per row or 1000. I do place a MUCH higher weight on making the stdlib readable and accessible for a large range of diverse people with different cultures, languages, traditions, eye-sight, screen sizes, and preferred beer flavors. ATM, Phobos ranks extremely poorly in this regard. Far worse than C++ which is by far one of worst ever. both Java and C# are surprisingly high on this list and are behind various "new-age" scripting languages such as python and Ruby and languages that were designed to be readable by humans such as Smalltalk.