On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 05:31:04PM +0100, mist wrote: > On Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 16:22:19 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote: [...] > >Heh. On the contrary, I find ssh to be a pleasant experience. Most > >GUI-heavy editors are so painfully inefficient to use that I find > >VT100 emulators far more pleasant to work with. > > I am vim user myself, but some legacy shells did not support more > than 80 symbol width, thus the pain and according code style > guidelines for us poor programmers on that project :)
I'm perfectly fine with 80 column max, actually. I find that overly long lines are very difficult to scan. But then if the coding style requires 8-space tabs and you're writing XML, then, well, I can understand why that would be painful. ;-) On a tangential note, I used to write Perl code with 2-space indentation, with code blocks nested 8-10 levels deep. The cascade of }'s that often occurred at the end of functions was quite a sight to behold. :-P [...] > >I have a 1600x1200 screen, and an 18-point font, which gives me 93*41 > >terminal size. I find that just about right. (Like I said, I maximize > >everything, and anything significantly smaller than 18-point font, I > >find quite unreadable.) > > Well this is probably the main reason of different spacing tastes. I > have literally twice as much vertical space fitting ( 1920x1080 @ 9pt > ), can imagine how it makes you favor more compact style. Probably. And it's probably the reason I dislike today's trend of half-height^W^W I mean, half-width, monitors: I always work with maximized windows, and I don't like overly long lines, so resizing the font to approximately 80 columns at 1920x1080 would literally be half-height for me, even worse than 80x24. T -- Indifference will certainly be the downfall of mankind, but who cares? -- Miquel van Smoorenburg
