The 80 character width dates back to when code reviews were done on paper. I have a recollection that the Sun guidelines are also 80 characters.
regards Malcolm Edgar On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Bob Schellink <[email protected]> wrote: > I much prefer scrolling vertically than horizontally. Did a quick test on my > laptop and 120 is too > wide. I often have windows on the left and right of the editor. Perhaps 100 > is more reasonable. > Remember that not only code but also docbook will be affected by this change. > > If we do make this change I'd really like to hold this off until I integrate > the Ajax code which > I've developed on a separate branch. > > Kind regards > > Bob > > On 23/05/2010 17:42, Adrian A. wrote: >>>> I see that the Click sourcecode is formatted at 80 chars width, but >>>> this is a >>>> very very old >>>> convention from the times of text based CRTs. >>>> >>>> Why not use 120? (like the standard in most companies these days)? >>>> It makes the code more readable, and there's no screen estate problem >>>> - on >>>> the contrary, there's no need to scroll down so much for every small >>>> thing. >>>> >>>> The 80 chars width convention also makes no sense for Java since it >>>> has so >>>> "verbose" naming (compared to the C code style), so just too many simple >>>> statements go on a second line. >>> Good catch George :). >>> >>> Indeed, the "80-style" makes the code uglier for Java, and also less >>> compact and less readable than the "120-style" one. >>> >>> +1 for reformatting the code to 120. >> Now with 2.2.0 out, I would like to reformat the code to 120, for the >> reasons mentioned. >> >> Are there any issues why we shouldn't do this? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Adrian. >> >> > >
