I agree that a standard is useful. However, monitors have changed drastically since the 80 column standard was agreed upon. I'm fond of 120, I think it strikes an ideal balance.
You can't standardise based on what you are fond of. That's the point of a standard. When such a large proportion of people, and the standard library, and most shells, use 80, then using 120 will inconvenience them. If you load my 80col code into your 120 col editor, it will not inconvenience you at all, barring an occasional extra line break.
>>py34 lns.py
total lines: 2099
0.063% over 80
import os
from pathlib import Path
def walklines(glob='**/*.py'):
for filename in Path(os.getcwd()).glob(glob):
with open(str(filename)) as file:
for line in file.readlines():
yield line
if __name__ == '__main__':
alllines = [line for line in walklines()
if line]
totallines = len(alllines)
cutoff = 80
total_long_lines = len([line for line in alllines
if len(line) > cutoff])
prcnt_long = total_long_lines / totallines
print('total lines: {}'.format(totallines))
print('{:.3f}% over {}'.format(prcnt_long, cutoff)) variable = some_function((some nested expression that is very long
and needs to wrap))
variable = some_function((
some nested expression that is very long but may not need to wrap
but if it does there's tons more room for it))
The only caveat, also covered in PEP 8 is for function definitions.
def some_descriptive_function_name(one_parameter,
another_parameter):
some_functionality()
def some_descriptive_function_name(
one_parameter, another_parameter):
some_functionality()
def some_descriptive_function_name(
one_parameter,
another_parameter,
):
some_functionality()
But, coding standards aren't about tastes, they are about coordinating large numbers of programmers to write code in consistent ways. PEP 8 gives the 'double indentation' as standard, rather than the 'K&R' style.
You're free to write however you want to, and if you're the tech director of a company, you can tell everyone else to follow your aesthetics. But you'll be doing a lot of work with code written according to PEP8. In my experience, learning and disciplining your team to use the standard is better than having a house-style. But YMMV, of course.
PEP8 isn't my 'ideal' aesthetic for Python either, but I'd need a far better reason than 'I think that looks ugly' for not using it.
I also agree 'indent to sibling' is poor, and not very universally tool-supported, even though it is part of the PEP8 style.
No.
>You can't standardise based on what you are fond of.
Sure you can. That's why company and team-wide standards are for.
Nobody has to be forced to use some BS 70's throwback rules just because they are in PEP8.
When lines are longer it becomes more difficult for your eyes to keep track of where the next line is. Furthermore, code is not formatted as paragraphs but as separate lines, so you end up wasting a lot of screen estate for those few long lines. Having a low maximum means it will be close to the average and a larger proportion of the screen is utilized.
Actually this claim is disputed: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/72/LineLeng...