Johan Tibell <johan.tib...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Simon Peyton Jones > <simo...@microsoft.com> wrote: >> | I used to be a 80 column guy, but moved away from that the last years. >> | But you are right, there must be an upper limit and, if >80 is a >> | problem for code reviews, then it's a reasonable choice. >> >> As laptop screens have successively more horizontal pixels and fewer >> vertical pixels, longer lines use screen real estate better. 80 columns now >> seems a bit narrow to me. 100 would be better. >> >> But I'm not going to die for this > > Here we go! > > * Wider screens let you have several Emacs buffers next to each > other. At 80 chars you can have about 2 buffers next to each other on > a 13" screen.
I think that was SimonM's premise for code reviews, that you want lines short enough to have two versions besides each other. > * The average line length is about 30-35 characters in Python. If > it's anything similar in Haskell shorter line length are more > efficient, looking how much of the lines times columns space is filled > with characters. The problem is that indentation and long identifiers push you towards longer lines. > * The eye has trouble traveling back to the next line if lines get > too long (at least when reading prose). Research says around 60-70 > characters is optimal, if I recall correctly. I think we read code differently to prose (and prose is not much indented), so I don't think these numbers transfer. Manuel _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
