I second the vote for consistency. The code I've been writing and the format that I've been pushing on Studios customers is * 80 chars wide * 4 space I'm not terribly attached to 4 spaces. 2 spaces sounds good, too.
I like 80 column screen width for a few reasons - * Multiple files - It's see 2 files simultanously with my editor split vertically at 11 pt font. * Remote Pair Programming - When pair-programming remotly using Breeze it's a screen size that's easier for the remote person to follow. * Nostalgia - I did a bunch of ASCII-art and BBSing as a kid on a VT100 that my dad brought home on weekends when I was a kid. * Coding Style - Code is usually easier to follow and a bit more modular when functions and classes are sufficiently broken up. I have no hard evidence for this. * UI Optimization - I've found that the 80-char width usually coincides with UI code in Laszlo that is more performant and doesn't use too many nested views. Before getting an 80 char screen width suggestion, Some of my quickly-written code has many layers of unnecessary nested views. I've found the same thing with code written by some folks that are not too familiar with UI programming with Laszlo or Flash. * Linux command-line - Yeah, I use linux in terminal mode sometimes. I also have been known to remotely edit files on xterms. I suppose 100-ish width would work for most of these too. Good morning! -e On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Scott Evans wrote: > I never voted for 4! I vote for consistency. But I'm personally a big > fan of 2. And a 100-ish column screen width! (hi pablo) > > > > gse > > > On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, P T Withington wrote: > > > Scott, please explain yourself. 4 seems wasteful. > > > > Long lines are considered harmful, no matter how wide your average screen. > > Have you read the Times lately? > > > > On 2006-07-25, at 13:36 EDT, Benjamin Shine wrote: > > > > > > > > 4! 4! 4! > > > Which I only say after having Scott slap me around repeatedly for doing it > > > wrong. > > > I used to be into 3, myself. > > > While we're at it, DARE WE come up with a line length recommended limit? > > > Pablo uses > > > 80 and maybe you hardcore oldskoolers do, but please, have you seen the > > > size > > > of the standard screen lately? Show me a coder who doesn't have at least > > > 1280 across and I'll show you... um. > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2006, at 7:05 AM, P T Withington wrote: > > > > > > > After the 'grand class conversion', Phil and I plan to re-indent the > > > > LFC sources. [Right now Phil is making the conversion trying to > > > > minimize the whitespace changes to make it easy to review. Once we > > > > have tested and verified that it all works, we plan to re-indent.] > > > > > > > > Looking over the LFC sources, we have some code that is indented with > > > > 4 spaces and some with 2. Do we care? My personal preference is 2 > > > > -- it's enough to be visually distinct without being wasteful. But most > > > > of the sources (and apparently most editors) default to 4. We > > > > have a change to make things uniform. > > > > > > > > Vote your choice today! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Laszlo-dev mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev > > > > > > benjamin shine > > > software engineer > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Laszlo-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev > _______________________________________________ Laszlo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.openlaszlo.org/mailman/listinfo/laszlo-dev
