Rustom Mody <> writes:

> You said this:
> > The 80 character line limit is *not* driven by a limitation of
> > computer technology; it is driven by a limitation of human
> > cognition. For that reason, it remains relevant until human
> > cognition in the general reading population improves.
> And you answered:
> > Until then may we relegate '79' to quaint historical
> > curiosities...??
> with
> > Not until the general capacity of human cognition advances to make
> > longer lines easier to read.

Indeed. Once again: Human cognition has limits, including limits on
reading speed and reading comprehension as the length of a line of text
increases beyond a threshold.

You have caricatured that as some kind of statement that every human has
a fundamental 79-column limit, which no-one has claimed.

If you can't see the difference between what I and others have been
saying about limits on human cognition, versus your caricature, then I
can only leave you to re-read until you do understand. And I'll thank
you not to straw-man people's positions.

 \             “Dyslexia means never having to say that you're ysror.” |
  `\                                                        —anonymous |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney


Reply via email to