Yeah, try explaining “drive C:” to a kid these days, and why it isn’t A: or B: …
Of course software developers are still stuck with 80 column conventions even though we have 16x9 4K displays now… Didn’t that come from punchcards ???
Of course software developers are still stuck with 80 column conventions even though we have 16x9 4K displays now… Didn’t that come from punchcards ???
80 characters per line is an odd convention in the sense that it originated from a technical limitation, but is in fact a rule of thumb perfectly familiar to any typesetting professional from long before personal computing became widespread.
Remember newspapers? Laying the text out in columns[0] is not a random quirk or result of yet another technology limitation. It is the same reason a good blog layout sets a conservative maximum width for when it is read on a landscape oriented screen.
The reason is that when each line is shorter, the entire thing becomes easier to read. Indeed, even accounting for legibility hit caused by hyphenation.
Up to a point, of course. That point may differ depending on the medium and the nature of the material: newspapers, given they deal with solid plain text and have other layout concerns, limit a line to around 50 characters; a book may go up to 80 characters. Given a program is not a relaxed fireside reading, I would place it closer to the former, but there are also factors and conventions that could bring acceptable line length up. For example, indentation and syntax highlighting, or typical identifier length (I’m looking at you, CNLabelContactRelationYoungerCousinMothersSiblingsDaughterOrFathersSistersDaughter), or editor capability to wrap lines nicely[1].
Finally, since the actual technical limitation is gone, it is actually not such a big deal to violate the line length rule on occasion.
[0] Relatedly, codebases roughly following the 80 character line length limitation unlock more interesting columnar layouts in editors and multiplexers.
[1] Isn’t the auto-wrap capability in today’s editors good enough that restricting line length is pointless at the authoring stage? Not really, and (arguably) especially not in case of any language that relies on indentation. Not that it could not be good enough, but considering code becomes increasingly write-only it seems unlikely we will see editors with perfect, context-sensitive, auto-wrap any time soon.
of typography and not be overly wide, lest my saccadic
motion leads my immersion and comprehension astray.
However when I read code I do not want to scan downwards to complete the semantics of a given expression because that will also break my comprehension and so when a line of code is long I'd prefer for it to remain long unless there are actually multiple clauses
and other conditionally chained
semantic elements
that are more easily read aloneCode isn’t prose. Code doesn’t always go to the line length limit then wrap, and prose doesn’t need a new line after every sentence. (Don’t nitpick this; you know what I’m saying)
The rules about how code and prose are formatted are different, so how the human brain finds the readability of each is necessarily different.
No code readability studies specifically looking for optimal line length have been done, to my knowledge. It may turn out to be the same as prose, but I doubt it. I think it will be different depending on the language and the size of the keywords in the language and the size of the given codebase. Longer keywords and method/function names will naturally lead to longer comfortable line lengths.
Line length is more about concepts per line, or words per line, than it is characters per line.
The 80-column limit was originally a technical one only. It has remained because of backwards compatibility and tradition.
Except 99.9% of times it's becomes 50 characters with 32pt font which occupies ~25% of the horizontal space on a 43".
"Good" my ass.
Sometimes I would visually separate a short bit of code from its surroundings (and usually add a comment on top) to make it clear that it is a controversial bit that needs attention of the reader. The same mechanism applies in less extreme cases, lifting baseline legibility.
Speak for yourself, all my projects use at least 100 if not 120 column lines (soft limit only).
Trying to keep lines at a readable length is still a valid goal though, even without the original technical limitations - although the bigger win there is to keep expression short, not to just wrap them into shorter lines.
> even though we have 16x9 4K displays now
Pretty much no normal person uses those at 100% scaling though, so unless you're thinking of the fellas who use a TV for a monitor, that doesn't actually help so much:
- 100% scaling: 6 panels of 80 columns fit, no px go to waste
- 125% scaling: 4 panels of 80 columns fit, 64 px go to waste (8 cols)
- 150% scaling: 4 panels of 80 columns fit, no px go to waste
- 175% scaling: 3 panels of 80 columns fit, 274 px go to waste (34 cols)
- 200% scaling: 3 panels of 80 columns fit, no px go to waste
This sounds good until you need any additional side panels. Think line numbers, scrollbars, breakpoint indicators, or worse: minimaps, and a directory browser. A minimap is usually 20 cols/panel, a directory browser is usually 40 cols. Scrollbar and bp-indicator together 2 cols/panel. Line numbers, probably safe to say, no more than 6 cols/panel.
With 2 panels, this works out to an entire additional panel in overhead, so out of 3 panels only 2 remain usable. That's the fate of the 175% and 200% options. So what is the "appropriate" scaling to use?
Well PPI-wise, if you're rocking a 32" model, then 150%. If a 27" model, then 175%. And of course, given a 22"-23"-24" unit, then 200%. People of course get sold on these for the "additional screen real estate" though, so they'll instead sacrifice seeing the entire screen at once and will put on their glasses. Maybe you prefer to drop down by 25% for each of these.
All of this is to say, it's not all that unreasonable. I personally feel a bit more comfortable with a 100 col margin, but I do definitely appreciate when various files nicely keep to the 80 col mark, they're a lot nicer to work with side-by-side.
Linting and autoformats help here... just allowing any length of line in code is just asking to get pwned at some point.
"That obviously means Users, so that's where the home directories are, right?"
"Well, no. And it actually means Unix System Resources"
(but historically it was in fact "user", just not in that sense)
I'm sure we'll eventually bacronym C: as well.
This will generally work with everything using the Win32 C api.
You will however run into weird issues when using .Net, with sudden invalid paths etc.
The abstraction of putting a display into an two-dimensional array of primitive cells is also not limited to teletypes. Using characters instead of picture elements (commonly shorted to pixels) is not a bad choice when all you want to do is render text and means that your rendering code can be much simpler. That's the case independently of the earlier technology forcing this way.
Teletype emulators also typically have a way of using pixels as the primitive (framebuffers). GUI Teletype emulators now don't, because there is a fine alternative to use pixels (the display server).