>On 7/4/07, Peter Memishian <peter.memishian at sun.com> wrote: >> * 113-143: Please reformat to be 80-column friendly. > >Why? It may be appropriate for the 60' of the last century but today >is 2007! /. had recently an article about this problem: >http://ask.slashdot.org/askslashdot/07/07/07/1931246.shtml >"Dating back to the venerable DEC VT100, the 80 column terminal has >served us well for over 25 years. Even now, many open source projects >and common conventions require lines of code and documentation to fit >on that terminal. I am not alone, judging by code I've seen in and out >of the open source world, in finding that number insufficient for >coding, much less more verbose writing. Given that modern graphical >displays (and all popular editors) are capable of far more, is it time >we came up with a new standard-sized terminal? If so, what should the >new standard be?" > >After lots of discussion it looks that a 132-column limit may be >better for humans and quality of the code
We had this discussion before; 80 columns it stays. (I can fit many more 80 column windows on a screen than 132 column windows) If you code nests so deeply it needs 132 columns, I would dare to suggest that the code quality is perhaps suboptimal. Also, I seriously question the usability of 132 columns; there is a limit to the width of text that humans can perceive; 132 is way beyond that. Casper
