Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> 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...??
> > 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 |