Robert Greayer <robgrea...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Xiao-Yong Jin <xj2...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>> Edward Kmett <ekm...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > I find a hard 80 character line length limit to be
>> > somewhat ridiculous in this
>> > day and age. I've long since revised my personal
>> > rule of thumb upwards towards
>> > 132, if only because I can still show two windows of
>> > that side by side with no
>> > worries, along with all the IDE browsing baggage, even
>> > on a fairly crippled
>> > laptop, and I've been able to have 132 columns
>> > since I picked up my first
>> > vt220 terminal in 1984 or so.
>> >
>>
>> I prefer 3 coding windows side by side. And being able to
>> read one line at a glance is a huge advantage. The size of
>> my urxvt is 80x77 FYI.
>>
>
> But the discussion is about a coding standard -- surely if I claimed to like
> to have 4 windows side by side, that wouldn't be a good reason to reduce the
> standard to 40 columns? Being able to read one line 'at a glance' seems to
> me to be improved if that line contains the complete equation, rather than
> just a fragment. Comprehension of a group of related equations can be
> improved if they all fit on one screen (vertically). Some code that I've
> written is intended to look like (and function as) rewrite rules and looks
> vastly better with pattern and replacement all on the same line. All the
> arguments can cut both ways -- for those who like coding with windows side by
> side, what about those who like coding with one window above another? Coding
> style is very situational, but the 80 character standard came about due to a
> once-ubiquitous device limitation (which no longer exists).
It's probably just a personal taste. My argument is just
that I prefer moving my eyes vertically to horizontally.
And I like that most news papers do that for me. And I'm
grateful that most people on the mailing list write emails
with proper line wrap as well.
>
> The *real* purpose of a coding standard, of course, is to give people
> something to argue over when they could be actually doing something more
> productive. So in the end, it's all good, I suppose.
Right. We should do something more productive than debating
over such a useless concept related to personal taste.
--
c/* __o/*
<\ * (__
*/\ <
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
